SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39439/03
by Ayşe AKIN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and Françoise Elens-Passos, 
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 November 2003,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Ayşe Akın, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Bursa. She was represented before the Court by Mr N. Yıldırım and Mr S. Urtekin, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 31 January 1994 the applicant's husband, Şeyhmus Akın, was shot and killed.
Subsequently, the Diyarbakır public prosecutor's office started an investigation. On 14 February 1994 the public prosecutor issued a decision based on lack of jurisdiction () and passed the investigation to the public prosecutor's office at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, on the ground that the killing of Şeyhmus Akın was a terrorist-related crime.
On 30 June 1997 the applicant lodged an application with the Diyarbakır Administrative Court against the Ministry of the Interior requesting compensation for the alleged damage that she had suffered on account of the killing of her husband.
On 10 July 1997 the Diyarbakır Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's claim, holding that she had failed to apply to the courts within the statutory time-limit. On 19 January 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 10 July 1997.
In 1997 criminal proceedings were brought against a certain F.K. before the Diyarbakır State Security Court for involvement in Hizbullah, an illegal organisation, and for the murder of Şeyhmus Akın.
On 21 May 1998 the case against F.K. was joined to another set of proceedings before the Diyarbakır State Security Court which were being brought against other persons suspected of involvement in Hizbullah.
On an unspecified date the applicant joined the case as a civil party (müdahil).
At the time of the application to the Court, the case was still pending before the Diyarbakır State Security Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleged under Article 2 of the Convention that the State had been responsible for the death of her husband on account of its failure to protect him and to provide an effective investigation into his death.
The applicant further contended under Article 13 of the Convention that there was no effective remedy in domestic law by which she could claim compensation for the killing of her husband.
THE LAW
After communication of the application to the respondent Government, their ensuing observations were sent, by letter dated 11 March 2008, to one of the applicant's representatives, who was requested to submit observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction, by 22 April 2008.
By letter dated 23 June 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant's representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's observations had expired on 22 April 2008 and that no extension of the time-limit had been requested. The attention of the applicant's representative 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 30 June 2008. However, no response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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 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	Francoise Tulkens
	Deputy Registrar	President