CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 juin 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .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. 6517/20 Yusuf Ulvi CERIT against Türkiye and 6 other applications (see appended table)   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 June 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’ complaints under Article 8 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 sent by registered post and dated 18 February 2022, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired 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. No reply to the letters has been received by the Court and there are 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 applications 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 20 July 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Frédéric Krenc   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX List of applications raising complaints under Article 8 of the Convention   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant’s name Year of Birth Represented by 1. 6517/20 Cerit v. Türkiye 14/01/2020 Yusuf Ulvi CERIT 1971   2. 13324/20 İstanbul v. Türkiye 18/02/2020 Selim İSTANBUL 1984 Tuba İSTANBUL 3. 15398/20 Karataşlı v. Türkiye 10/02/2020 Süleyman KARATAŞLI 1971   4. 21291/20 Türk v. Türkiye 27/04/2020 Kenan TÜRK 1980   5. 23501/20 Kösmene v. Türkiye 08/05/2020 Ali Baz KÖSMENE 1974 Büşra KESER 6. 41684/20 Kaya v. Türkiye 02/09/2020 Sezgin KAYA 1973 Erdoğan DINCEL 7. 46888/20 Çakır v. Türkiye 09/10/2020 Recep ÇAKIR 1976 Abdurrahman ÇAKIR