SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 47098/10 Veysi KULPU against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 26 April 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Paul Lemmens , President , Ksenija Turković , Jon Fridrik Kjølbro , judges,

and Milan Bla Å¡ ko , Acting D eputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 June 2010 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Veysi Kulpu , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Batman. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Korkmaz , a lawyer practising in Batman .

The Turkish Government (“the Government”) w ere represented by their Agent.

The applicant is the owner of a property in the Toptancılar Sitesi area of Batman, which is located in close proximity to the TÜPRAŞ Batman Oil Refinery (“TÜPRAŞ”).

On 3 May 2004 a big explosion occurred in Toptancılar Sitesi , which resulted in three deaths and many injuries. The explosion and the ensuing fire also damaged many properties in the vicinity, including that of the applicant.

The applicant complained under Article s 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair trial as the compensation claim he had brought in relation to his damages arising from the explosion had been erroneously rejected as being out of time, that the domestic courts ’ judgments had lacked reasoning, and that the authorities had not taken the necessary steps to elucidate the circumstances surrounding the explosion in order to determine liability and punish those responsible. He further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that he had not been indemnified for the damages to his property resulting from the explosion, that the State authorities had not fulfilled their positive obligations to protect his property rights and that the ongoing danger of explosion in Toptancılar Sitesi had constituted a continuing restrict ion on the use of his property.

The applicant ’ s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

By letter dated 25 November 2015 , sent by registered mail , the applicant ’ s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s representative ’ 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. It appears that the letter could not be delivered to the applicant ’ s representative, as he could not be located at the address provided. The undelivered letter returned to the Registry on 12 January 2016. It is noted that no information has been received from the applicant ’ s representative regarding any change of address, despite the clear obligation to this effect provided for by Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court .

THE LAW

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. Furtherm ore, 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.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

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

Done in English and notified in writing on 19 May 2016 .

Milan Bla Å¡ ko Paul Lemmens Acting Deputy Registrar President