SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 33188/10 Alireza ZAREEÄ° against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on date 15 March 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Nebojša Vučinić , President, Valeriu Griţco , Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström , judges, and Abel Campos , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 May 2010 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant, Mr Alireza Zareei , is an Iranian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Istanbul He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Kurt , a lawyer practising in Van .

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

3. Without relying on any Article of the Convention, t he applicant complained that he had been subjected to ill-treatment in police custody and that the doctors had issued conflicting reports with regard to his medical situation. He further complained that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment.

4. On 13 January 2014 the application was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. On 1 July 2014 t he observations were forwarded to the applicant ’ s former representative , who was invited to submit the applicant ’ s observations. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

5. By letter dated 22 September 2014 , sent by registered post, the applicant ’ s former representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 12 August 2014 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. The applicant ’ s representative received this letter on 30 September 2014 . However , no response has been received.

6. By letter dated 22 December 2014, the applicant was informed that his former representative had failed to respond to the Registry ’ s letter and was requested to inform the Court whether he intended to pursue the application. This letter was returned to the Court as the applicant had moved from the address of which he had notified the Court.

7. On 12 February 2015 the applicant sent a letter informing the Court that he had dismissed his previous representative. On 10 July 2015 Mr S. Kurt, the applicant ’ s current representative, sent an authority form to the Court signed by the applicant and requested a new time-limit for submission by the applicant of his observations on the admissibility and merits of the application together with claims for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention. The Vice-President of the Section agreed to set a new time limit which was 20 August 2015. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

8. By letter dated 18 November 2015 , sent by registered post, the applicant ’ s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 20 August 2015 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. However, no response has been received and the Registry ’ s letter was returned as the applicant ’ s representative could not be found at the address of which he had notified the Court.

9. By letter dated 7 January 2016, the applicant was informed that the Registry ’ s letter dated 18 November 2015 returned to the Court as his representative had changed address. The applicant was invited to inform the Court whether he intended to pursue the application.

10. On 4 February 2016 the Registry ’ s letter dated 7 January 2016 was returned to the Court since the applicant had moved from the address of which he had notified the Court, without informing the Court of the change of address.

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. 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.

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 7 April 2016 .

Abel Campos NebojÅ¡a Vučinić              Deputy Registrar President