SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 30099/02 by Fidan DO Äž AN against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mrs F. Tulkens , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr I. Cabral Barreto , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze , Mr V. Zagrebelsky , Mrs A. Mularoni , Mr D. Popović, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 May 2002,

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 applicant, Mrs Fidan Do ğ an, is a Turkish national who was born in 1942 and lives in Istanbul . She was represe nted before the Court by Mrs F. Karakaş Doğan, a lawyer practising in Istanbul . The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.

The application concerns the alleged arrest and subsequent disappearance of the applicant ’ s son, Coşkun Doğan , who was 25 years old at the time of the events giving rise to the application.

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

According to the applicant, on an unspecified date in 1996 or 1997, her son CoÅŸkun DoÄŸan disappeared.

In 1997, criminal proceedings were initiated against Coşkun Doğan for membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (“the Kurdistan Workers ’ Party”). The Istanbul State Security Court ordered his detention on remand in absentia . These proceedings are still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court .

On 23 or 24 February 2002 at about 3 or 4 p.m., as the applicant was watching the news broadcast on the TV8 channel, the newsreader announced that CoÅŸkun DoÄŸan had been apprehended as a member of an illegal organisation during a security operation in Tunceli. According to the applicant, pictures of her son were also shown on TV .

Subsequently, the applicant filed several petitions with the domestic authorities to find the whereabouts of his son.

On 7 May 2002 the Istanbul Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non ‑ prosecution, based on the information received from the Istanbul Security Directorate on 25 April 2002 that CoÅŸkun DoÄŸan had not been taken into custody.

On 20 May 2002 an objection was filed against the decision of 7 May 2002.

On 10 and 13 May 2002 respectively, the Istanbul State Security Court requested the Kangal Gendarmerie Command and the Tunceli Security Directorate to submit information concerning the whereabouts of CoÅŸkun DoÄŸan.

On 29 May 2002 the Kangal Gendarmerie Commander sent a letter to the Istanbul State Security Court . In his letter, the commander contended that there had been a search warrant valid until 1 March 2002 in respect of CoÅŸkun DoÄŸan within the context of two investigations initiated by the Zara and SuÅŸehri Public Prosecutors.

On 30 May 2002 the Tunceli Deputy Security Director informed the Istanbul State Security Court that on 22 September 2001 a search warrant had been issued for CoÅŸkun DoÄŸan within the context of an investigation conducted by the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court . He further informed the court that on 3 May 2002 another search warrant had been issued by the Istanbul Security Directorate as CoÅŸkun DoÄŸan was considered to be a missing person.

On 5 June 2002 the Tunceli Public Prosecutor issued a decision of non ‑ prosecution, holding that there was no evidence demonstrating that CoÅŸkun DoÄŸan had been arrested or that he was detained in a prison. He noted that there had been no security operation in Tunceli between 20 and 28 February 2002 and that, if there had there been an armed clash or a security operation in the region, it would have been indicated in the official records.

On 20 June 2002 the applicant filed an objection against the decision of 5 June 2002.

On 2 August 2002 the Erzincan Assize Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal.

In the Government ’ s observations, it is submitted that on 8 June 2006 a member of the PKK gave a statement before the Tunceli Gendarmerie Command in the presence of his lawyer, naming Coşkun Doğan as a combatant member of the PKK.

C OMPLAINTS

The applicant alleged that the arrest and disappearance of her son, CoÅŸkun DoÄŸan, con stituted a violation of Article 2 of the Convention.

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the suffering which she has endured on account of her son ’ s disappearance had been in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The applicant maintained under Article 5 of the Convention that her son had been deprived of his liberty in an arbitrary manner.

The applicant finally alleged under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the investigations carried out into her allegations had been ineffective and inadequate.

THE LAW

On 28 August 2006 the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government. On 5 March 2007 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. On 11 March 2007 the applicant ’ s representative was invited to submit by 24 April 2007 any further observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction. On 5 June 2007 the Registry sent a registered letter to the applicant ’ s representative, informing h er that the period allowed for the submission of the applicant ’ s observations had expired on 24 April 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. This letter was delivered to the applicant ’ s representative on 11 June 2007.

The Court notes that, in the said letter, the attention of the applicant ’ s representative was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;”

The Registry has received no response to date.

In these circumstances, the Court considers that 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.

Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

S. Dollé F. Tulkens Registrar              President