SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 34046/03
by Ahmet METE
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 September 2003,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ahmet Mete, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and was serving a prison sentence in Nazilli at the time of the introduction of the application. He was represented before the Court by Mr Adnan Terece, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
On 8 July 2001 the applicant was arrested by police officers from the Anti-Terrorist Branch of the Mardin Police Headquarters on suspicion of membership of a proscribed organisation, namely the PKK (the Workers’ Party of Kurdistan).
During his police custody and subsequently when brought before a prosecutor and a judge the applicant was questioned in the absence of a lawyer. In the statements made by him in police custody the applicant admitted involvement in the PKK.
The applicant was remanded in custody and was prosecuted for the above-mentioned offence. On 19 September 2002 the İzmir State Security Court found the applicant guilty as charged. It sentenced him to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment pursuant to Article 168 of the Criminal Code. In convicting the applicant, the court had regard to the statements made by him to the police, the prosecutor and the judge in the absence of a lawyer. On 4 March 2003 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant’s conviction.
The applicant made various complaints to the Court under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, including a complaint about the absence of early legal advice.
THE LAW
The Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay ex gratia EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to Mr Ahmet Mete with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s legal representative:
“I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay the sum of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to Mr Ahmet Mete with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Having consulted my client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Nevertheless, the Court considers that, taking into account the requirements of the proper administration of justice, the State should ensure that all necessary steps are taken to allow the re-trial of the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, should the applicant so request (see Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 72, 27 November 2008).
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.
Françoise Elens-PassosFrançoise Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy