FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22437/05
by Mustafa GEREN
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 October 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 May 2005,
Having regard to the partial decision of 6 October 2009,
Having regard to the declaration of the respondent Government made with view to resolving the application and requesting the Court to strike it out of its list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mustafa Geren, is a Turkish national who was born in 1952 and lives in Istanbul. He is represented before the Court by Mr Gökmen Ergűr, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Nikolova from the Ministry of Justice.
THE FACTS
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 13 November 2001 the applicant was detained in custody on suspicion of having stabbed his wife earlier the same day.
On an unspecified date he was charged with attempted murder.
In a judgment of 4 November 2002 the Burgas Regional Court found him guilty as charged, sentenced him to five years' imprisonment and ordered him to pay, inter alia, the amount of 909.90 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately 460 euros (EUR), costs for expert examinations and for interpretation.
Apparently, on an appeal, in a judgment of an unspecified date the Burgas Court of Appeal remitted the case for procedural breaches.
In a judgment of 6 June 2003 the Burgas Regional Court once again found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to seven years' imprisonment and ordered him to pay, inter alia, BGN 1,459.90 (approximately EUR 750) costs for expert examinations, a state-appointed lawyer and interpretation, incurred from the beginning of the court proceedings.
On the applicant's appeals, both the Burgas Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Cassation, in a final judgment of 21 December 2004, upheld the previous court's judgment. The courts ordered the applicant to pay, inter alia, additional interpretation costs of BGN 150 (approximately EUR 75).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (e) that he had not been granted the free assistance of an interpreter.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (e) of the Convention about the lack of free assistance of an interpreter.
On 28 April 2010 the Court received a unilateral declaration from the Government made with a view to resolving the application. The Government requested the Court to strike out the application of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration, in particular, read:
“[...] The Government hereby wish to express [...] its acknowledgment of the applicant's complaint concerning the free assistance of an interpreter as required by Article 6 § 3 (e).
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the amount of [...] EUR 600 which they consider reasonable in the light of the Court's case law. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into Bulgarian [levs] at the exchange rate applicable at the time of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be chargeable to the applicant. 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 [Convention]. [...]
The Government, therefore, request that this application be struck out of the Court's list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The Government's acknowledgement of a violation of Article 6 § 3 (e)...and its acceptance of the claim for compensation in the amount of 600 EUR constitute “[an]other reason” within the meaning of this provision.”
The applicant did not comment on the Government's unilateral declaration.
The Court recalls that Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention enables it to strike a case out of its list where:
“[...] for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
Article 37 § 1 in fine provides that:
“However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The Court also recalls that in certain circumstances it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government (see Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI).
Having regard to the acknowledgements contained in the Government's declaration, as well as to the amount of compensation proposed, which is compatible with the amounts awarded in similar cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the present application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1(c).
In view of its extensive and clear case law concerning the free assistance of an interpreter, including in cases brought against Bulgaria (see, for example, Luedicke, Belkacem and Koç v. Germany, 28 November 1978, Series A no. 29, Öztürk v. Germany, 21 February 1984, Series A no. 73 and Işyar v. Bulgaria, no. 391/03, 20 November 2008), the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine). Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsRait Maruste
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy