FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 42088/02 by Ali Çelik KASIMOĞULLARI against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President, Mr J. Casadevall , Mr G. Bonello , Mr R. Türmen , Mr K. Traja , Mr L. Garlicki , Mr J. Šikuta , judges, and Mr T.L. Early , Section Re gistrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 October 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 deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ali Çelik Kas ı moğullar ı , is a Turkish national who was born in 19 53 and lives in Istanbul . He is represented before the Court by M r İbrahim Bilmez and Mr Okan Yıldız , lawyer s practising in Istanbul . At the material time, the applicant was the owner of Yeniden Özgür Gündem , a Turkish-language daily newspaper, based 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.

Yenide n Özgür Gündem was first published on 2 September 2002.

On 9 September 2002 a ban was imposed on the distribution of the Yeniden Özgur Gündem newspaper in the cities of Diyarbakır and Şırnak pursuant to section 11 (e) of the State of Emergency Law No. 2935.

In this respect, the governor of the state of emergency region wrote to Mr Davut Uçar, in his capacity as the representative of Yeniden Özgür Gündem in Diyarbakır , and informed him about the ban. The letter reads as follows:

“ Having regard to the D ecree no. 02/156 issued by the governor ’ s office of the State of Emergency Region on 9 September 2002, and with effect from 9 September 2002, the distribution of Yeniden Özgür Gündem in the provinces (Diyarbakır and Şırnak) where the state of emergency has been declared , shall be prohibited. ”

The applicant could not appeal against this decision since there is no domestic remedy whereby the form or substance of legislative decrees issued by the governor of the state of emergency regime could be contested.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that he had been denied access to court to challenge the decision of the governor of the state of emergency region. He also maintained under Article 6 § 2 that his right to the presumption of innocence had been breached since the ban had been imposed without a fair trial.

The applicant maintained that the ban on the distribution of Yeniden Özgür Gündem was a breach of Article 7 of the Convention. In this respect, he stated that at the time when the ban was imposed, no criminal proceedings were pending against the newspaper.

The applicant also alleged that the ban imposed by the governor on the distribution of the daily newspaper Yeniden Özgür Gündem in the state of emergency region constitute d in itself an unjustified interference with the exercise of hi s right to freedom of thought and freedom to impart information or ideas. He rel ied i n that connection on Article s 9 and 10 of the Convention .

The applicant claimed that the ban imposed on Yeniden Özgür Gündem disclosed discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention.

The applicant submit ted that the respondent State applied restrictions to the Convention rights in violation of the Convention, particularly in the s tate of e mergency r egion. He rel ied in this respect on Article 17 of the Convention.

The applicant maintain ed under Article 18 of the Convention that the restrictions on the exercise of the aforemen tioned rights and freedoms had been applied for purposes not permitted under the Convention.

Finally, under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant alleged that the ban imposed on the distribution of Yeniden Özgür Gündem constituted an interference with his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions .

THE LAW

On 22 September 2005 the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government. On 13 March 2006 the Government submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. On 10 April 2006 the applicant ’ s representatives were invited to submit by 22 May 2006 any further observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction. On 19 July 2006 the Registry sent a registered letter to the applicant ’ s representatives, informing them that the period allowed for the submission of the applicant ’ s observations had expired on 22 May 2006 and that no extension of time had been requested. This letter was delivered to the applicant ’ s representatives on 27 July 2006.

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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case;

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

T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President