THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 958/02 by Ali AKSU and Hüseyin AKSU against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 August 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B.M. Zupančič , President , Mr C. Bîrsan , Mr R. Türmen , Mrs A. Gyulumyan , Mr David Thór Björgvinsson , Mrs I. Ziemele , Mrs I. Berro-Lefèvre , judges , and Mr S. Quesada , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 September 2001,

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

Having regard to the partial decision of 19 October 2006 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Ali Aksu and Mr Hüseyin Aksu , are Turkish nationals who were born in 1960 and 1949 respectively and live in Antalya . They were represented before the Court by Mr N. Abay , a lawyer practising in Antalya . The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court.

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

In 1997 the General Directorate of National Airports ( Devlet Hava Meydanları İşletmesi Genel Müdürlüğü -D.H.M.İ) issued an order for the expropriation of the applicants ’ plot of land in Antalya . A committee of experts assessed the value of the plots of land and the amounts so assessed were paid to the applicants.

On 31 December 1997 the applicants brought an action for additional compensation before the Antalya Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. On 2 June 1998 the first-instance court decided to award the applicants additional compensation of 18,489,937,732 Turkish liras (TRL) plus interest at the statutory rate , running from 11 January 1998.

On 18 January 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and ordered the latter to request additional expert reports.

On 19 September 2000, following the examination of additional reports , the Antalya Civil Court of General Jurisdiction decided to award the applicants additional compensation of TRL 5,424,796,955 plus interest at the statutory rate , running from 11 January 1998.

On 21 November 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 19 September 2000 .

On an unspecified date, the applicants requested the rectification of the Court of Cassation ’ s decision.

On 15 February 2001 the Court of Cassation dismissed their request.

On 10 April 2001 the administration pai d the applicants the sum of TRL 14,967,050,000 including interest.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants alleged, without invoking any provision of the Convention, that the rate of interest for delay payable on the additional compensation for expropriation was too low and that the expropriating authority delayed in settling the relevant amount.

THE LAW

On 19 October 2006 the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government. On 1 March 2007 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. On 2 March 2007 the applicants ’ representative was invited to submit by 13 April 2007 any further observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction. On 22 May 2007 the Registry sent a registered letter to the applicants ’ representative, informing him that the period allowed for the submission of the applicants ’ observations had expired on 13 April 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. This letter was delivered to the applicants ’ representative on 31 May 2007.

The Court notes that, in the said letter, the attention of the applicants ’ representatives 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 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 , it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and the case should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Santiago Quesada Boštjan M. Zupančič Registrar President