FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 60845/00 by ErÅŸan ATMACA against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 April 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza, President, Mr G. Bonello, Mr R. Türmen, Mr K. Traja, Mr L. Garlicki, Mr J. Šikuta, Mrs P. Hirvelä, judges, and Mrs F. Araci , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 March 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government on 5 June 2006,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ersan Atmaca, is a Turkish national who was born in 1973 and lives in Balıkesir. He was represented before the Court by Mr N. Toktay, a lawyer practising in Ankara.

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

The applicant was a student of the Yozgat police academy. On an unspecified date, the authorities of the academy requested the Yozgat Criminal Laboratory to analyse the students ’ handwritings and to compare them with graffiti written in the toilets. The expert report dated 11 November 1997 stated that the writing on the wall was most likely to be that of the applicant.

On 17 November 1997 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody by police officers at the anti-terror branch of the Yozgat Security Directorate. The applicant confessed that he had written the graffiti on the walls of the toilet under the influence of a friend and that he regretted his act.

On the same day, he was examined by a doctor at the Yozgat State Hospital. According to the medical report drafted by the doctor, the applicant did not bear any physical signs of ill-treatment.

On 19 November 1997 the applicant was examined by a doctor at the Yozgat Health Centre. According to the medical report drafted by the doctor, the applicant did not bear any physical signs of ill-treatment.

On 19 November 1997 the applicant gave his statements before the public prosecutor and the Magistrates ’ Court. Before both the public prosecutor and the Magistrates ’ Court the applicant confessed to having committed the impugned act. He was remanded in custody.

On 24 November 1997 the public prosecutor at the Ankara State Security Court filed a bill of indictment accusing the applicant of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation.

During the proceedings before the Ankara State Security Court, the applicant denied his previous statements and claimed that he had given them under duress. He further challenged the veracity of the medical examination conducted on 19 November 1997.

On 23 December 1998 the Ankara State Security Court stated that it did not find convincing the applicant ’ s statements before it and, taking into account the applicant ’ s confessions in police custody, and before the public prosecutor and the Magistrates ’ Court together with the expert report of 11 November 1997, convicted the applicant under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to three years and nine months ’ imprisonment.

On 29 September 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the aforementioned judgment holding that the applicant should have been convicted under Article 7 of Law no. 3713.

In the meantime on 1 July 1998 the applicant was released pending trial.

On 23 December 1998 the Ankara State Security Court convicted the applicant under Article 169 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to three years and nine months ’ imprisonment.

On 9 November 1999 the Joint Criminal Chambers of the Court of Cassation upheld the above-mentioned judgment.

On an unspecified date, the applicant was imprisoned to purge his sentence.

On 10 January 2001 the Ankara State Security Court decided to conditionally release the applicant pursuant to Article 1 § 2 of the Law no. 4616.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that his right to be presumed innocent was violated. In this connection, he claimed that there was no other evidence apart from the expert report, his statements given in police custody, before the public prosecutor and before the Magistrates ’ Court to convict him. He claimed that all these statements were taken under duress and that the court should have ordered another expert report as this expert had not been appointed by the judge.

PROCEDURE

On 15 December 2005 the Court decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant ’ s complaint.

On 5 June 2006 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits.

By letter dated 29 June 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 9 September 2006.

By letter dated 30 October 2006, sent by registered post, the applicant ’ s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his client ’ s observations had expired on 9 September 2006 and that no extension of time has 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. This letter was returned to the Registry on 27 November 2006 as it was not claimed.

By letter dated 2 January 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified of the aforementioned events. 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 received this letter on 12 January 2007. However, no response has been received.

THE LAW

The Court notes that, on 2 January 2007, the applicant was reminded that the period allowed for submission of his written observations had expired and warned of the possibility that the case might be struck out of the Court ’ s list. The applicant has 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 reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Fato ÅŸ Araci Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar President