SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16846/05
by Metin TARLAK
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,Ireneu Cabral Barreto,Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,Danutė Jočienė,András Sajó,Nona Tsotsoria,Işıl Karakaş, judges,and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 April 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Metin Tarlak, a Turkish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Diyarbakir. He is represented before the Court by Mr K Sidar, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant's complaints under Articles 3, 9 and 11 of the Convention 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  20 November 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant's representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 4 November 2009 and that no extension of time 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 representative received this letter on 2 December 2009. However, no response has been received by the Court.
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 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.

	Sally Dollé	Françoise Tulkens	Registrar	President