SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5517/10
İhsan AKYAZ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8 October 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Julia Laffranque, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 December 2009,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 28 June 2019 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr İhsan Akyaz, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Ms F. Karakaş Doğan, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he had been denied the assistance of a lawyer during the initial stages of the criminal proceedings, and that his conviction was based on the statements he had made to the police in the absence of a lawyer. The applicant further maintained that he had been denied a fair trial by an independent and impartial tribunal as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the presence of a military judge in the composition of the trial court for the first three years of the trial and the number of changes in the composition of the trial’s court’s bench during the trial.
4. The application was communicated to the Government under 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention.
5. After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by a letter dated 28 June 2019 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application.
6. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government of Turkey acknowledge that in the present case there has been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention in the light of the well-established case-law of the Court.
The Government also recalls that Law no. 4928 on 15 July 2003 repealed the provision concerning the systemic restriction on the right of access to a lawyer.
The Government further emphasises that Article 311 § 1 (f) of the Code on Criminal Procedure, as amended by Law no.7145 of 31 July 2018, now requires reopening of criminal proceedings in cases where the European Court of Human Rights decides to strike an application out of its list of cases following a friendly settlement or a unilateral declaration. The Government considers that the aforementioned remedy is capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.
The Government thus offers, by this unilateral declaration, to pay the applicant, İhsan AKYAZ, EUR 500 (five hundred euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant with a view to resolving the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum will be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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.”
7. On 30 July 2019 the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that he had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration.
THE LAW
8. Having regard to the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention in so far as they relate to the systemic restriction on his right of access to a lawyer and the use of evidence obtained in the absence of a lawyer to convict him, the Court finds that following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.
9. It therefore takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties in so far as it relates to the above complaints. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application.
10. The Court would like to draw attention to the fact that on 25 July 2018 the Turkish Parliament has adopted Law no.7145. Articles 4, 17, 18 and 19 of this new law provide for a right to request the re-opening of domestic court proceedings following the Court’s decision to strike out a case on the basis of a friendly settlement or unilateral declaration. In particular, according to the Court’s case-law and practice, the re-opening of the domestic proceedings is the most appropriate way to provide an effective solution to an alleged breach of Article 6 of the Convention. Thus, it is considered that the aforementioned remedy is capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. Bearing in mind the Court’s subsidiary role in protecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and its protocols, it is recalled that it falls in the first place to the national authorities to redress any violation of the Convention.
11. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it relates to the above complaint.
12. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant also complained that he had not been tried by an independent and impartial tribunal due to the presence of a military judge in the composition of the Istanbul State Security Court for the first three years of the trial and the number of changes in the composition of the trial’s court’s bench during the trial.
13. Having examined this complaint in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, the Court finds that this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols (see, in respect of the presence of the military judge in the composition of the State Security Courts, İzzet Çelik v. Turkey, no. 15185/05, § 33, 23 January 2018, and Kabasakal and Atar v. Turkey, nos. 70084/01 and 70085/01, § 34, 19 September 2006; see, in respect of the changes in the composition of the trial’s court’s bench during the trial, Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 80, Series A no. 80).
14. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 7 November 2019.
Hasan BakırcıJulia Laffranque
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy