SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 41185/05 by Besey AK and Others against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens , President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky , Dragoljub Popović , Nona Tsotsoria , Işıl Karakaş , Kristina Pardalos , judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 October 2005,

Having regard to the partial decision of 13 May 2008 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants Mr Besey Ak , Ms Hanifi Ak, Mr Arif Ak, Ms Ayşe Ak, Ms Zeynep Ak, Mr Rıfat Ak, Mr Mehmet Ak, Ms Güllü Ak, Mr Müslüm Ak and Ms Mürvet Ak are Turkish nationals who live in Gaziantep . They are repres ented before the Court by Mr M.Ş . Y ı ld ı z, a lawyer practising in Gaziantep . The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complained of the authorities ’ delay of two years and eight months in paying them a sum of compensation which had been awarded to them following the expropriation of their land.

THE LAW

The Court considers that it is no longer required to examine the present application for the reasons elaborated below.

By letter dated 15 September 2008, the Government ’ s observations were sent to the applicants ’ legal representative, who was requested to submit any comments, together with a ny claims for just satisfaction, by 27 October 2008 . The representative did not submit any observations by the indicated date.

By letter dated 14 May 2009 , sent by registered post, the legal representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicants ’ observations had expired on 27 October 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The attention of the representative 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 the conclusion that the applicant does not in tend to pursue the application. According to information from postal authorities, this letter was delivered to the representative ’ s office on 29 May 2009. N o response has been received to date .

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. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens Registrar President