CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 mai 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DE2FFBE { width:164.4pt; display:inline-block } .s592DDD86 { width:181.08pt; display:inline-block } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s619FCD1 { font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 17853/11 Henok TAREKE and others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21   May 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Peer Lorenzen, President,   András Sajó,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 March 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. All four applicants are Eritrean nationals. The first three applicants were born in 1977, 1989 and 1991 respectively. They hold temporary residence permits to reside in Isparta. However, according to the information submitted by the Government, their whereabouts are unknown. The fourth applicant’s date of birth is unknown and he was sent to Sudan by the authorities upon his request. The applicants were represented before the Court by Ms S. Uludağ, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicants complained under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention that their removal to Eritrea or Sudan would expose them to a real risk of death or ill-treatment and that they did not have an effective domestic remedy whereby they could have that allegation examined. They further alleged under Article 3 of the Convention that they had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment during their detention at the international transit zone of the Istanbul Atatürk Airport. Relying upon Article 5 of the Convention, the applicants argued that their detention lacked legal basis, that they had not been notified of its reasons and that they had not had access to any domestic remedy to request their release, challenge the lawfulness of their detention or claim compensation for the unlawful deprivation of liberty. Finally, they submitted under Article 34 of the Convention that they had been denied direct access to their representative. 4.     On 18 March 2011 the President of the Chamber to which the case had been allocated decided to indicate to the Government, under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court, that the applicants should not be deported until 2 April 2011. The application was also given priority under Rule 41. 5.     On 1 April 2011 it was decided to discontinue the interim measure under Rule 39 in respect of the fourth applicant, Girmay Gebremariam Tela, as he wished to be returned to Sudan. The measure was prolonged until 7   April   2011 in respect of the remaining applicants. 6.     After three prolongations decided on 7 April, 21 April and 3 May 2011 respectively, on 6 June 2011 the President of the Section decided to extend the application of the interim measure until further notice. 7.     On 6 January 2012 the application was 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. 8.     By a letter dated 1 March 2013, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 29 August 2012 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. 9.     According to the information obtained from the official website of the Turkish Postal Service, the applicants’ representative received that letter on 18 March 2013. However, no response has been received. THE LAW 10.     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. The Court, however, has the power to restore the case to the list in the event of fresh circumstances capable of justifying such a course. 11.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court and 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   Peer Lorenzen Acting Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix       Henok TAREKE     Salmon TAHASTE     Jamal ALI EL AMEN     Germay GEBREMARIAM TELA