CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 avril 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s459D9084 { width:131.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 44192/18 Ahmet YAPALAK against Türkiye and 23 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6 April 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Frédéric Krenc , President ,   Diana Sârcu,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of the applicants and their representatives is set out in the appendix. The applicants’ various complaints under Article 5 of the Convention were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letters dated 18 October 2022, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations   had expired on 12 September 2022 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The registered letters either returned to the Court as unclaimed or were received by the applicants to which they did not respond. There are also no previous letters from the applicants informing the Court about the change of address. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto, the Court, in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications. Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 May 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Frédéric Krenc   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 of the Convention   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 44192/18 Yapalak v. Türkiye 11/09/2018 Ahmet YAPALAK 1987 Kırıkkale Turkish   2. 47444/18 Özbayram v. Türkiye 24/09/2018 Mehmet ÖZBAYRAM 1974 Yozgat Turkish Şükran ÖZBAYRAM 3. 53925/18 Kisin v. Türkiye 02/10/2018 Ercan KİŞİN 1964 Bursa Turkish   4. 54455/18 Saka v. Türkiye 01/11/2018 Fatih SAKA 1990 Kırıkkale Turkish   5. 55894/18 Taşğın v. Türkiye 05/10/2018 Serkan TAŞĞIN 1977 Şanlıurfa Turkish Mehmet Emin DEMİRKOL 6. 56270/18 Şahin v. Türkiye 16/11/2018 Mehmet ŞAHİN 1993 Konya Turkish Nursel AKGÜN 7. 56577/18 Bilgin v. Türkiye 22/11/2018 Salih BİLGİN 1991 Istanbul Turkish Dinçer ÖNCÜL 8. 57214/18 Kaya v. Türkiye 21/11/2018 Adem KAYA 1987 İzmir Turkish   9. 57760/18 Keskin v. Türkiye 21/11/2018 Ensar KESKİN 1972 Artvin Turkish Ersayın IŞIK 10. 58224/18 Çabuk v. Türkiye 23/11/2018 Ali ÇABUK 1986 Kahramanmaraş Turkish   11. 59202/18 Öztaş v. Türkiye 22/11/2018 Erol ÖZTAŞ 1973 Istanbul Turkish   12. 59992/18 Çınar v. Türkiye 21/11/2018 Semih ÇINAR 1978 Sivas Turkish Oktay KAYA 13. 28/19 Barlas v. Türkiye 10/12/2018 Ömer BARLAS 1971 Lokeren Turkish Süleyman Şahin BARLAS 14. 113/19 Çalak v. Türkiye 11/12/2018 Ramazan ÇALAK 1989 İzmit Turkish   15. 373/19 Çoban v. Türkiye 07/12/2018 Osman Aytek ÇOBAN 1977 İzmir Turkish Ahmet KOCABAŞ 16. 1148/19 Tütüneken v. Türkiye 06/12/2018 Yunus Emre TÜTÜNEKEN 1991 Bursa Turkish Yavuz BULUT 17. 2014/19 Gülbey v. Türkiye 27/12/2018 Engin GÜLBEY 1981 Yalova Turkish   18. 2018/19 Eren v. Türkiye 17/12/2018 Habil Faruk EREN 1986 Ordu Turkish   19. 2127/19 İnan v. Türkiye 28/11/2018 Mehmet İNAN 1983 Adana Turkish Mehmet Fatih ARSLAN 20. 2232/19 Özer v. Türkiye 26/11/2018 Aşkın ÖZER 1965 Kahramanmaraş Turkish   21. 2255/19 Aksoy v. Türkiye 28/11/2018 Hüseyin AKSOY 1976 Osmaniye Turkish   22. 2257/19 Koç v. Türkiye 06/12/2018 Emre KOÇ 1983 Karaman Turkish Mustafa Ali ÇOLAK 23. 2262/19 İmamoğlu v. Türkiye 05/12/2018 Aydın İMAMOĞLU 1978 Bursa Turkish   24. 2863/19 Apaydın v. Türkiye 03/01/2019 Turgay APAYDIN 1974 Elazığ Turkish Serhat BADEM