SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 26681/95
by Nazmi BALKAŞ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 March 2001 as a Chamber composed of
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrG. Bonello,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrP. Lorenzen,
MrM. Fischbach, judges,
MrF. Gölcüklü, ad hoc judge,
and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 14 December 1994 and registered on 9 March 1995,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND COMPLAINTS
The applicant is a Turkish national living in the Lice district of the province of Diyarbakır (Turkey). He is represented before the Court by Mr Hasip Kaplan, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
In his application the applicant complained that his tomato-paste factory was destroyed as a result of the random and disproportionate gunfire of the security forces in the course of clashes between the latter and PKK militants in Lice. He alleged that his rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had been violated.
PROCEDURE
Following informal contacts between the applicants and the Government’s representatives, the Section Registrar was asked to assist the parties in reaching a solution to the matter.
As a result, the Registrar proposed that the applicant withdraw the application on the condition that the Government pay to the applicant the sum of 90,000 pounds sterling free of any taxes which may be applicable and to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment.
By letters of 15 March 2001 and 2 February 2001 the Government and the applicant respectively agreed to the proposal.
THE LAW
The Court takes note of the applicant’s withdrawal of the application on the basis of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention). The Court considers that there is no reason which would justify the continuation of the examination of the application.
For these reasons, the Court
Decides to disjoin the application from the other 201 Lice applications;
Decides to strike the application out of the list.
Erik FriberghChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy