FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 12851/12 Ömer AY against Germany

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting on 23 September 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Boštjan M. Zupančič, President, Angelika Nußberger, Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,

and Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 February 2012 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Ömer Ay , is a Turkish national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Frankenthal, Germany. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. A. Leonhardt , a lawyer practising in Frankfurt am Main .

The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by two of their Agent s , Mr H.-J. Behrens and Mrs K. Behr , of the Federal Ministry of Justice.

In his application, the applicant complained under Article 5 § 1, Article 5 § 4, Article 5 § 5, Article 6 § 1 and Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention about the failure of the Kaiserslautern Public Prosecution to grant his counsel access to the investigation file before a hearing concerning the review of his pre-trial detention.

The application was communicated to the Government under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The se observations were forwarded to the applicant ’ s counsel , who was invited to submit observations on behalf of the applicant by 28 March 2014 . No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

By letter dated 12 May 2014 , sent by registered post, the applicant ’ s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 28 March 2014 and that no extension of time had been requested. The 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 confirmation of receipt of the Court ’ s letter by the law firm of the applicant ’ s representative was received at the Court on 2 June 2014. However, to date the Court has not receive d an answer.

All letters were sent to the Fra nkfurt am Main address of the representative ’ s law firm indicated on his correspondence with the Court. According to information available on intern et, the applicant ’ s lawyer still works for this law firm which still has its offices at the same address. The applicant himself has never been in contact with the Court .

THE LAW

Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides:

“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; ...

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

The Court reiterates that an applicant ’ s failure to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case or other information or documents requested by the Court may warrant the conclusion that he or she does not intend to pursue the application (see, inter alia , Oberländer v. Germany (dec), no. 9643/04, 7 December 2010; Perek v. Poland (dec.), no. 37021/05, 9 September 2008 ; and Zayed v. Germany (dec.), no. 35866/03, 20 February 2007 ).

Having regard to the failure of the applicant ’ s counsel to submit observations in reply to the Government ’ s observations in the circumstances described above, the Court considers that the applicant must 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.

Stephen Phillips BoÅ¡tjan M. Zupančič              Deputy Registrar President