GUR A OSTATNÍ proti Turecku

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 52514/99
by Irfan GÜR and Others
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28 September 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B.M. Zupančič, President,
Mr J. Hedigan,
Mr R. Türmen,
Mr C. Bîrsan,
Mr V. Zagrebelsky,
Mr E. Myjer,
Mr David Thór Björgvinsson, judges,
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 June 1999,

Having regard to the partial decision of 20 October 2005,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Irfan Gür, Mr Levent Kepenek and Mr Seyit Pelitli, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1970, 1960 and 1975 respectively. Mr Gür and Mr Pelitli reside in İzmir. Mr Kepenek lives in Germany. They were represented before the Court by Mrs I.G. Kireçkaya, a lawyer practising in İzmir.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants were arrested and taken into custody by the Anti-terror branch of the İzmir Security Directorate on suspicion of membership in an illegal organisation on various dates between 11 and 16 November 1994. They were remanded in custody on 24 November 1994.

On 15 December 1994 the public prosecutor at the İzmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicants of membership in an illegal organisation. The charges were brought under Article 168 of the Criminal Code.

On 21 August 1997 the İzmir State Security Court convicted the applicants as charged. The first applicant was sentenced to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment. The other applicants were sentenced to three years and nine months’ imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 18 November 1998.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention that they were denied a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal on account of the presence of the military judge on the bench of the State Security Court which tried and convicted them. In addition, the applicants complained that the fairness of the proceedings was also undermined by other shortcomings.

PROCEDURE

On 2 November 2005 the Court decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicants’ complaints.

On 3 March 2006 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits.

By letter dated 14 March 2006, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants, who were requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 25 April 2006.

By letter dated 16 May 2006, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his clients’ observations had expired on 25 April 2006 and that no extension of time has been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to a conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. No response has been received.

THE LAW

The Court notes that on 16 May 2006 the applicants’ representative was reminded that the period allowed for submission of her clients’ written observations had expired and warned of the possibility that the case might be struck out of the Court’s list. The applicants’ representative has not submitted any reply to the Court.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case.

Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič
Registrar President