SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 58298/10 Tahir PEKTAÅž and O thers against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 December 2013 as a Committee composed of:

Peer Lorenzen , President, András Sajó , Nebojša Vučinić , judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 August 2010 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants, whose details are set out in the Appendix, are Turkish nationals who live in Mersin . They were represented by Emrah Ö ner , a lawyer practi s ing in Ankara.

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

The applicants ’ son and brother, Semih PektaÅŸ (hereinafter referred to as “S.P.”) was serving his compulsory military service in the mechanized infantry brigade in Mamak , a district of Ankara, at the material time.

On 18 September 2009 approximately five minutes after he had entered the weapons depot, where he was going to be on guard duty from 8 p.m. until midnight, three gunshots were heard. Other soldiers who ran to the weapons depot found him shot in the head, lying flat on the floor covered in blood. The rifle, which had been loaded, was near him, on the floor.

On 18 December 2009 the military public prosecutor held that S.P. had committed suicide and issued a decision of non-prosecution. The applicants filed an objection against the decision of non-prosecution. The military court dismissed the objection on 28 January 2010. According to the court, the evidence gathered indicated that S.P. had committed suicide, the investigation had been carried out meticulously and there was no issue that remained to be resolved.

The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention that their son ’ s and brother ’ s life was not protected by the authorities during his compulsory military service . They also complained under Article 13 of the Convention that they were not able to effectively participate in the investigation, that the decisions were taken on the basis of the case file; that no hearing was held and also that the investigation was not subject to public scrutiny.

The applicants ’ complaints under Article 2 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

By letter dated 29 July 2013 , sent by registered post, the applicants ’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 7 June 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants ’ 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.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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.

Stanley Naismith Peer Lorenzen Registrar President

APPENDIX