SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4667/03
by İsmail DUYGULU
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 September 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr İsmail Duygulu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Antalya. He was represented before the Court by Mrs S. Kaplan, a lawyer practising in Antalya. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 24 November 1993 the applicant brought proceedings against the Ministry of Interior and asked for his police records to be erased.
On 14 May 1997 the Antalya Administrative Court ordered the erasure of the police records, with the exception of an entry in respect of a robbery for which the applicant had been tried and acquitted in 1982.
On 8 November 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld this decision. A request for a rectification of its judgment was rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court on 11 June 2002.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained that the proceedings brought by him before the Antalya Administrative Court had not been completed within a reasonable time, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 3 April 2008 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay, ex gratia, 4,000 (four thousand) euros (i.e. 3,000 euros in respect of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and 1,000 euros in respect of costs and expenses) to Mr İsmail Duygulu 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 new Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and 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:
“I, Mrs Serpil Kaplan, lawyer, note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay, ex gratia 4,000 (four thousand) euros (i.e. 3,000 euros in respect of pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage and 1,000 euros in respect of costs and expenses) to Mr İsmail Duygulu 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 new Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and 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.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare 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). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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 DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy