CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 juin 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s469066A6 { width:125.6pt; display:inline-block } .s36109428 { width:18.7pt; display:inline-block } .sAF085221 { width:186.27pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 49229/06 by Erol BOYLAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21   June 2011 as a Committee composed of: David Thór Björgvinsson, President, Giorgio Malinverni, Guido Raimondi, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 November 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Erol Boylan, is a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Istanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr   M.   Dinçer, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention that the treatment which he had been subjected to at the police station on 28   November 2005 had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He further complained under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention about the decision of the authorities not to prosecute the responsible police officers. The applicant’s complaints concerning the ill-treatment he had allegedly been subjected to and the lack of an effective investigation into these allegations 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 24 November 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 2 November 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. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 8 December 2010. However, 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   David Thór Björgvinsson   Deputy Registrar   President