SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55901/11
İbrahim KAVAKLI and Others
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 September 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Julia Laffranque, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 May 2011,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 29 March 2018 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. The applicants complained under Article 2 of the Convention about the ineffectiveness of the administrative proceedings which were initiated into their mother’s death following a fire that had broken out at her home.
4. The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
5. The applicants complained about the death of their mother who had died during a fire that had broken out at her home. They alleged that the fire brigade had failed to extinguish the fire in a timely manner due to several technical problems that they encountered with the fire trucks. The applicants relied on Article 2 of the Convention.
6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 29 March 2018 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
7. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government of Turkey hereby wish to express by way of unilateral declaration its acknowledgement that the judicial proceedings concerning the death of the applicants’ mother did not meet the standards enshrined in Article 2 of the Convention. The Government undertake to adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the obligation to conduct such proceedings effectively is respected in the future.
The Government of Turkey declare that they offer to pay jointly to the applicants İbrahim Kavaklı, Döndü Cankar and Yusuf Kavaklı, with a view of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human rights, EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros) to cover any and all non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable and EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to cover any and all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
These sums will be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, from the 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.”
8. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
9. It also reiterates 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 even if the applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.
10. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
11. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the State’s duty to safeguard the right to life and to have in place an effective independent judicial system securing the availability of legal means capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress to the victim (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 91-96, ECHR 2004‑XII).
12. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
13. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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).
14. The Court considers that these amounts should be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amounts in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
15. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
16. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 2 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 3 October 2019.
Hasan BakırcıJulia Laffranque
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No.
Applicant’s Name
Birth date
Nationality
Place of residence
1
İbrahim KAVAKLI
01/10/1958
Turkish
Çorum
2
Döndü CANKAR
01/01/1957
Turkish
Çorum
3
Yusuf KAVAKLI
01/01/1956
Turkish
Çorum
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy