SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 30059/05 by Sad ı k ÇAKMAK against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:

Danutė Jočienė , President, Nona Tsotsoria , Guido Raimondi , judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 August 2005,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The application was lodged by Mr Sadı k Çakmak, a Turkish national , who was born in 1950 and lives in Ankara . He is represented before the Court by Mr G. Aldemir, a lawyer practising in Ankara . The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

On 4 September 2009 t he applicant ' s complaint concerning the length of the civil proceedings 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 observations in response . No reply was received to the Registry ' s letter.

By letter dated 22 June 2010 , sent by registered post, the applicant ' s representative was notified that the p eriod allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 20 May 2010 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, to date no response has been received.

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.

Françoise Elens-Passos Danutė Jočienė Deputy Registrar President