FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

Application no. 5526/02 by Hulusi BARIÅž against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr G. Bonello , Mr R. Türmen , Mr K. Traja , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , judges ,

and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 December 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 deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Hulusi Bar ı ş , is a Turkish national who was born in 1956 and lives in I stanbul . He was represented before the Court by Mr Demirtaş , 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 facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 28 January 1992 the applicant was detained on remand.

On 4 February 1992 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court against the applicant and six other persons. The applicant was accused of having committed embezzlement contrary to Articles 202 § 2 and 227 § 2 of the Criminal Code.

On 11 March 1992 the applicant was released pending trial.

On 14 November 1995 the assize court acquitted the applicant of the charges against him.

On 19 December 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 14 November 1995.

On 21 October 2002 the Istanbul Assize Court decided to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant, holding that the prosecution was time-barred ( zamanaşımı ).

The Istanbul Municipality , which had joined the proceedings as a civil party, appealed against the judgment of 21 October 2002.

In their observations, the Government informed the Court that the proceedings were still pending before the Court of Cassation.

COMPLAINTS

Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings.             

THE LAW

On 4 May 2006 the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government. On 20 October 2006 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. On 8 November 2006 the applicant ’ s representative was invited to submit by 20 December 2006 any further observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction. On 13 February 2007 the Registry sent a registered letter to the applicant ’ s representative, informing h i m that the period allowed for the submission of the applicant ’ s observations had expired on 20 December 2006 and that no extension of time had been requested. This letter was delivered to the applicant ’ s representative on 2 March 2007 .

The Court notes that, in the said letter, the attention of the applicant ’ s 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 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.

T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President