[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Mahmut TASDELEN v Turkey - 71830/01 [2008] ECHR 1180 (30 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/1180.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 1180

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 71830/01
by Mahmut TAŞDELEN
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 30 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Işıl Karakaş,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 January 2001,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mahmut Taşdelen, is a Turkish national who lives in Erzincan. He is represented before the Court by Mr H. Tuna, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 5 July 1993 the applicant's house was destroyed when terrorists raided his village. Subsequently, the applicant brought an action for compensation with the Sivas Administrative Court. He claimed, inter alia, that the State had failed to undertake all the necessary measures to prevent the occurrence of terrorism in the area.

On 20 December 1995 the Sivas Administrative Court, on the basis of the doctrine of social risk, decided in the applicant's favour and ordered the Ministry of Interior to pay him, together with costs and expenses, 322,292,200 Turkish Liras (TRL), together with interest at a statutory rate running from the date on which he filed his request with the administration, namely on 4 July 1994. The Ministry appealed. On 30 October 1996 the Supreme Administrative Council upheld the judgment of the first-instance court.

The applicant initiated enforcement proceedings against the Ministry.

On 23 November 1998 the applicant received a partial payment of TRL 58,809,000. According to the applicant's letter of 26 January 2007 the Ministry did not make any further payments after this date.

In their observations, dated 26 November 2007, the Government submitted that, on 26 September 1996, the amount of TRL 509,040,000 had been transferred to the Şişli Branch of Vakıflar Bank in order to be paid to the case file 1996/2661 of the Şişli 2^nd Execution Office.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the non enforcement of the judgment given in his favour.

THE LAW

By letter dated 28 November 2007, the Government's observations were sent to the applicant's representative, who was requested to submit his observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 11 January 2008.

By letters dated 5 February 2008 and 21 April 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant's representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicants' observations had expired on 11 January 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The 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.

In addition, on 22 April 2008, the Registry faxed a copy of the letter of 21 April 2008 to the applicant's representative. However, no response has been received.

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.

Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President