SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 19858/03 by Mehmet KAYA against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens , President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto , Rıza Türmen , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky , Danutė Jočienė , András Sajó , Nona Tsotsoria , judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy S ection Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 April 2003,

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 ap plicant, Mr Mehmet Kaya , is a Turkish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Bing ö l . He is represen ted before the Court by Mr M.Z. Alagöz , a lawyer practising in Bing ö l . The Turkish Government (“ the Government”) are represented by their Agent.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 27 March 2003 the applicant and a group of friends were standing on the corner of a main street in Bingöl . A woman (E.G.) who was passing by complained to four police officers patrolling the neighbourhood of having been harassed by the applicant and asked for help. The officers requested sight of the identity cards of the applicant and his friends. Following their refusal to comply with the order, the police officers arrested the applicant and one of his friends (E.A.), and sought to put them in a police car. As a result of the applicant ’ s resistance to the officers, a fight broke out. The applicant ’ s nose and right hand were injured and two police officers also received injuries.

The applicant was first taken to the Bingöl State Hospital for examination, where it was concluded that the applicant had a nose bleed which did not jeopardise his health. Moreover, a t oxicological examination established that the applicant ’ s blood- alcohol level was 0.95 per mille . Meanwhile, the police officers also underwent medical examinations. The doctor ’ s reports indicated that Officers İ.B. and C.S. were unfit for work for five and three days, respectively, given that their bodies bore ecchymoses , scratches and soft tissue trauma.

The applicant and his friend E.A were later taken to the Bingöl Yenişehir Ş. H. Polat Security Directorate, where they were allegedly beaten up by the police.

On 28 March 2003 the police officers took the applicant to the Bingöl Clinic for another medical examination. The medical report noted that the applicant ’ s nose and right hand were injured and that there was consequential bruising. It concluded that these injuries did not jeopardise the applicant ’ s health.

Later the same day, the applicant was brought to the office of the Bingöl Public Prosecutor where he denied the allegations against him and complained of having been ill-treated by the police during his arrest. He maintained that, as he had been under the influence of alcohol, he did not remember exactly how he had injured his hand and nose. However, he believed that it happened when the police officers put him into their vehicle by force.

Before the Bingöl Magistrate Court , the applicant reiterated his earlier statements. The judge decided to detain the applicant and E.A. on remand.

On 31 March 2003 the applicant ’ s lawyer filed an objection against the remand decision .

On 1 April 2003 the Bingöl Public Prosecutor filed an indictment with the Bingöl Criminal Court against the applicant and E.A for harassing people under the influence of alcohol and attacking the police officers, thereby obstructing them in the course of their duties. Two police officers, who were injured by the applicant ’ s actions, joined the criminal proceedings as complainants. They submitted medical reports which certified them unfit to work for a few days.

On 2 April 2003 the court dismissed the lawyer ’ s request dated 31 March 2003 and prolonged the applicant ’ s detention, relying on the nature of the offence and the state of the evidence.

On 16 May 2003 the court ordered the applicant ’ s release pending trial.

On 21 May 2004 the Bingöl Criminal Court convicted the applicant as charged and fined him 2,022,350,000 [1] Turkish liras. The court then decided to suspend the enforcement of the applicant ’ s penalty in accordance with Article 6 of Law no. 647.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that the treatment to which he had been subjected during his arrest and subsequent detention had amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

He alleged under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty as there was no reasonable suspicion for his arrest and detention.

The applicant maintained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic court had arbitrarily dismissed his request for release pending trial.

THE LAW

The Court does not deem it necessary to examine the merits of the present application for the following reasons:

After communication of the case to the respondent Government, their observations were sent to the applicant ’ s representative on 30 May 2007 , with a request for a reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction , by 11 July 2007. At the request of the applicant ’ s representative, that time-limit was extended to 22 August 2007.

By letter dated 5 October 2007 , sent by registered post, the applicant ’ s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant ’ s observations had expired and that no further extension of time had been requested. The representative ’ s atte ntion 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 int end to pursue the application. He received this letter on 16 October 2007. However, no response has been forthcoming .

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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.

Françoise Elens - Passos Françoise Tulkens Deputy Registrar President

[1] The equivalent of 1,112 euros , at the time of the judgment.