SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 2360/03 Mehmet Fikret ÇİÇEK and others against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 24 March 2015 as a Chamber composed of:

András Sajó , President , Işıl Karakaş , Nebojša Vučinić , Helen Keller, Egidijus Kūris , Robert Spano , Jon Fridrik Kjølbro , judges ,

and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 December 2002 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1 . A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

3 . The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that as a result of the annotation put on the title deed they had not been able to make use of their property, which constituted an unjustified interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.

4 . The applicants further complained, under Article 6 of the Convention, that the decision of the land registry office to put an annotation in the land register had not been based on a judicial decision.

5 . On 11 December 2007 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicants ’ complaints detailed above.

6 . On 23 June 2008 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded to the applicants, who replied on 3 September 2008 .

7. On 31 July 2012 the applicants ’ representative informed the Court that the applicants wanted to withdraw the application since the annotation put on the title deed would be removed according to the Law on the Fostering of Forest Villagers, Utilization of Lands Taken Out of Forest Boundaries and Registered Under the Name of the Treasury and the Sale of Agricultural Lands Owned by the Treasury (Law no. 6292) which entered into force on 26 April 2012. The applicants also claimed the reimbursement of their legal costs and expenses in the same letter of withdrawal.

T he annotation on the title deed of the applicants was removed on 5 September 2012 .

THE LAW

A. Complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Protocol N o. 1

8 . The Court considers that the applicants do not wish to pursue their application and the case should therefore be struck out pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention . In this regard, it also notes that the matter has been resolved as the annotation on the title deed of the applicants was removed on 5 September 2012 accordi ng to the Article 7 of Law n o. 6292.

9 . 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.

10. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.

B. Application of Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court

11 . Rule 43 § 4 of the Rules of Court provides :

“When an application has been struck out, the costs shall be at the discretion of the Court. ...”

12 . Rule 60 of the Rules of Court provides, in the relevant part:

“...

2. The applicant must submit itemized particulars of all claims, together with any relevant supporting documents, within the time-limit fixed for the submission of the applicant ’ s observations on the merits unless the President of the Chamber directs otherwise.

3. If the applicant fails to comply with the requirements set out in the preceding paragraphs the Chamber may reject the claims in whole or in part.

...”

13 . The applicant claimed the reimbursement of 1 , 000 , 000 euros ( EUR ) in legal costs on the ground that the need to bring an application in the present case arose from the authorities ’ failure to respect the applicants ’ right to property.

14 . The Court reiterates that the general principles governing the reimbursement of costs under Rule 43 § 4 are essentially the same as under Article 41 of the Convention (see El Majjaoui and Stichting Touba Moskee v. the Netherlands (striking out) [GC], no. 25525/03, § 39, 20 December 2007, and Kovačić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], nos. 44574/98, 45133/98 and 48316/99, § 276, 3 October 2008). In other words, in order to be reimbursed, the costs must relate to the alleged violation or violations, have been actually and necessarily incurred and be reasonable as to quantum. Furthermore, under Rule 60 § 2, itemized particulars of any claim made under Article 41 of the Convention must be submitted, together with the relevant supporting documents or vouchers, failing which the Court may reject the claim in whole or in part (see, am ong other authorities, ibid ., § 133 , Bottazzi v. Italy [GC], no. 34884/97 , § 30, ECHR 1999-V , and Shevanova v. Latvia , no. 58822/00 , § 55, 15 June 2006).

32. Accordingly, observ ing that the claims made by the applicant are not supported by invoices or other documentation, the Court sees no grounds to award the applicant any sum under this head.

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 23 April 2015 .

Stanley Naismith András Sajó Registrar President

Appendix