THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 31096/02 by Medeni TARLAN against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22 March 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B.M. Zupančič , President , Mr C. Bîrsan , Mr R. Türmen ,

Mrs A. Gyulumyan , Mr E. Myjer , Mr David Thór Björgvinsson , Mrs I. Berro-Lefèvre, judges , and Mr S. Quesada , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 June 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 30 March 2006,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 7 September 2006,

Having deliberated, decides as follows :

THE FACTS

The appl icant, Mr Medeni Tarlan, is a Turkish national w ho was born in 1967 and was detained in Erzurum prison at the time of the lodging of the application . He was represented before the Court by Mr S . Kaya, a lawyer practising in Ankara .

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

Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code, on 26 September 1994, on account of his alleged involvement in activities that undermined the territorial integrity of the State.

On 6 April 1999 the applicant was convicted as charged by the Erzincan State Security Court . This judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation.

In the meantime, following the abolition of the Erzincan State Security Court , the case file was transmitted to the Erzurum State Security Court .

On 13 March 2001 the Erzurum State Security Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. This judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 6 December 2001.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were not concluded within a reasonable time and that the written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation was never served on him, thus depriving him of the opportunity to put forward his counter-arguments.

PROCEDURE

On 30 March 2006 the Court decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant ’ s complaints. At the same time, the Court invited the applicant ’ s representative to submit a duly signed authority form.

On 7 September 2006 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits.

By letter dated 14 September 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 26 October 2006.

By letter dated 8 December 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 26 October 2006 and that no extension of time had 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 the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. No response has been received.

THE LAW

The Court notes that on 8 December 2006 the applicant ’ s representative was reminded that the period allowed for submission of his 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 representative has not submitted any reply to the Court. Moreover, he has not submitted a duly signed authority form.

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.

Santiago Quesada Boštjan M. Zupančič Registrar President