SECOND SECTION
CASE OF DİLİPAK AND KARAKAYA v. TURKEY
(Applications nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05)
JUDGMENT
(Just satisfaction - Striking out)
STRASBOURG
9 January 2018
FINAL
09/04/2018
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Robert Spano, President,
Julia Laffranque,
Ledi Bianku,
Işıl Karakaş,
Nebojša Vučinić,
Paul Lemmens,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 5 December 2017,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two Turkish nationals, Mr Abdurrahman Dilipak and Mr Hasan Karakaya (“the applicants”), on 28 January 2005 and 16 June 2005 respectively.
2. Mr Dilipak was represented by Mr S. Döğücü, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. Mr Karakaya was represented by Mr A. Pacci, another lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. In a judgment delivered on 4 March 2014 (“the principal judgment”), the Court decided to join the applications and held that there had been a violation of Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention (see Dilipak and Karakaya v. Turkey, nos. 7942/05 and 24838/05, §§ 108 and 143, 4 March 2014).
4. Under Article 41 of the Convention, as the first applicant, Mr Karakaya, did not submit any claim, the Court considered that there was no call to award him any sum on that account.
5. In respect of the second applicant, Mr Dilipak, since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit their written observations on that issue, and in particular to notify the Court of any agreement that they might reach.
6. Mr Dilipak and the Government each filed observations.
7. On 1 December 2016 the Court received a common declaration duly signed by both parties, whereby the applicant agreed to have his application struck out of the Court’s list of cases against an undertaking by the Government to pay him EUR 15,000 (fifteen thousand euros) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage, TRY 6,875 (six thousand eight hundred and seventy five Turkish liras) in respect of pecuniary damage, and TRY 12,720 (twelve thousand seven hundred and twenty Turkish liras) for costs and expenses. In accordance with this common declaration, the parties agreed that this payment will constitute the final resolution of the case and Mr Dilipak waived his rights to apply to the Court for just satisfaction in this case.
THE LAW
8. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the matter has been resolved within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention and that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the application under Article 37 § 1 in fine.
9. Accordingly, the remainder of the application should be struck out of the list.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 January 2018, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Hasan BakırcıRobert Spano
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy