CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 mai 2024

.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 } .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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s346604BE { width:105.85pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sE55E11EC { width:137.42pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 51654/20 Bejdar Ro AMED against Türkiye The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 May 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Diana Sârcu, President,   Davor Derenčinović,   Gediminas Sagatys , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4   November 2020, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Bejdar Ro Amed, was born in 1969. He was represented by Ms E.T. İpek Ulaş, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The applicant’s complaints under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention concerning the seizure of manuscripts by prison administration were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations by 10 November 2022. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 5 July 2023, sent via the Court’s Electronic Communication Service (eComms), the applicant was reminded that he had not replied to the Registry’s previous correspondence. His attention was also 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. On 22 January 2024, at the request of the applicant’s representative who had been contacted by telephone, all the previous letters with annexes were re ‑ sent by eComms. The representative downloaded those letters and documents on the same day. However, no response has followed. THE LAW 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 application. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 6 June 2024.       Viktoriya Maradudina   Diana Sârcu   Acting Deputy Registrar   President