CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 septembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAE8EB48 { width:21.35pt; display:inline-block } .sB5B22EFB { width:176.27pt; display:inline-block } .sB622B88D { width:38.36pt; display:inline-block } .sD5CCF864 { width:129.92pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 4513/07 Fadhil A. ARAB against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 3   September as a Committee composed of:   Dragoljub Popović, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Helen Keller, judges, and, Atilla Nalbant Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 January 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Fadhil A. Arab, is an Iraqi national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Turkey. He was represented before the Court by Mr   M.   Usta, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant complained under Articles 3, 5, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about his alleged ill-treatment by the police, his detention in the Zeytinburnu police headquarters, and of the allegedly poor conditions of detention therein. The application was 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. The applicant’s representative also submitted observations and claims for just satisfaction. By a letter dated 28 February 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was requested to inform the Court about the applicant’s whereabouts. He was further asked to inform the Court as to whether he was in contact with the applicant and whether the applicant wished to maintain the application. The applicant’s representative was finally requested for information on the outcome of the criminal proceedings brought against a third person, a police officer, who had allegedly ill-treated the applicant. The applicant’s representative was warned that if he failed to submit the information requested by 29 March 2013, the Court might strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant did not intend to pursue the application. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 18 March 2013. On   13   May 2013 he sent the information required but in his letter he informed the Court that he was not able to contact the applicant despite all his efforts. 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 (see, for example, Berfejani and Hajaran v. Turkey (dec.), no. 18854/07, 12 February 2008). 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.   Atilla Nalbant   Dragoljub Popović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President