SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 37576/02 by Seyithan KAVAK against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 12 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mrs F. Tulkens , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr I. Cabral Barreto , Mr R. Türmen , Mr M. Ugrekhelidze , Mrs A. Mularoni , M r s D. Jočienė , judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 August 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 regard to the partial decision of 20 June 2006 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applic ant, Mr Seyithan Kavak , is a Turkish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Batman. He is represented befo re the Court by Mr A. Erkul , Mr C. Çoban , and Mr M. Ş. Onur , lawyers practising in Batman .

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

On 19 January 2000 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody.

On 20 January 2000 the applicant was examined at 12.00 noon and 3.00 p.m. respectively by a doctor, who reported that the applicant had two loose front teeth.

On 23 January 2000 the applicant was brought before the investigating judge, who ordered the applicant ’ s detention on remand.

On an unspecified date, the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and two others, accusing them of membership of the Hezbollah.

On 24 April 2001 the Diyarbakır State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years and six months ’ imprisonment.

In his petition to the Court of Cassation dated 19 June 2001, the applicant referred to the medical reports of 20 January 2000, which allegedly showed that he had been ill-treated whilst in police custody.

On 15 November 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment while he was held in police custody.

PROCEDURE

On 20 June 2006 the Court decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant ’ s complaint.

On 11 December 2006 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits.

By letter dated 20 December 2006, the Government ’ s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 31 January 2007.

By letter dated 13 March 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant ’ s representatives were notified that the period allowed for submission of their client ’ s observations had expired on 31 January 2007 and that no extension of time ha d been requested. The applicant ’ s attention 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 a conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant ’ s representatives received this letter on 23 March 2007. However, no response has been received.

THE LAW

The Court notes that on 13 March 2007 the applicant ’ s representatives were reminded that the period allowed for submission of their client ’ s written observations had expired and warned of the possibility that the case might be struck out of the Court ’ s list. The applicant ’ s representatives have not submitted any reply to the Court.

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.

Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.

For these r easons, the Court unanimously

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

S. Dollé F. Tulkens Registrar President