SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24906/07
by Kazım GÜLEÇYÜZ and Mehmet KUTLULAR
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 August 2011 as a Committee composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Giorgio Malinverni,
Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 May 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicants, Mr Kazim Güleçyüz and Mehmet Kutlular, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1959 and 1938 respectively and live in Istanbul. They were represented before the Court by Mr Turgut İnal, a lawyer practising in Balıkesir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr Kaan Esener, Minister Plenipotentiary and Deputy Director General for the Council of Europe and Human Rights.
Before the Court, the applicants complained about the domestic courts’ decisions ordering them to pay compensation as a result of defamation on account of an article written by the first applicant and published in the second applicant’s newspaper Yeni Asya.
On 15 March 2010 the President of the Second Section decided to communicate the applicants’ complaint concerning the alleged interference with their freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention.
On 18 January and 22 February 2011 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay, ex gratia, Mr Kazım Güleçyüz and Mr Mehmet Kutlular, in total, EUR 38,200, plus any tax that may be chargeable to them, sum which will be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment. 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 LAW
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 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 strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Françoise Elens-PasssosDavid Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy