SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 57758/08
by Hüseyin KIZILTOPRAK
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 September 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 7 November 2008,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 28 January 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Hüseyin Kızıltoprak, is a Turkish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr E. Kanar, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 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 15 December 1999 the applicant was arrested and on 19 December 1999 he was placed in detention on remand.
On 23 December 1999 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court, accusing the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation.
On 24 July 2002 the applicant was released pending trial.
On 4 June 2007 the Istanbul Assize Court sentenced the applicant to three years and nine months’ imprisonment.
On 8 May 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Istanbul Assize Court and discontinued the proceedings, stating that the statutory time-limit for the charge against the applicant had expired.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his pre-trial detention.
Relying upon Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant maintains that the criminal proceedings against him lasted unreasonably long.
THE LAW
1. As to the complaint about the length of proceedings
The applicant complained about the length of the criminal proceedings instigated against him. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
By letter dated 28 January 2011 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.
The declaration provided as follows:
“Je déclare que le Gouvernement de la République de Turquie offre de verser au requérant, M. Hüseyin Kızıltoprak, la somme de 4 000 (quatre mille) euros, couvrant tout préjudice matériel et moral ainsi que 500 (cinq cents) euros, couvrant l’ensemble des frais et dépens, plus tout montant pouvant être dû à titre d’impôt par le requérant, sommes qu’il considère comme appropriées à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour.
Cette somme sera convertie en livres turques au taux applicable à la date du paiement, et exemptes de toute taxe éventuellement applicable. Elle sera payée dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision de la Cour rendue conformément à l’article 37 § 1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. A défaut de règlement dans ledit délai, le Gouvernement s’engage à verser, à compter de l’expiration de celui-ci et jusqu’au règlement effectif de la somme en question, un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage. Ce versement vaudra règlement définitif de l’affaire.
Le Gouvernement considère que la procédure interne engagée par la partie requérante a connu une durée excessive au sens de la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour (Daneshpayeh c. Turquie, no 21086/04, 16 juillet 2009). Il invite respectueusement la Cour à dire qu’il ne se justifie plus de poursuivre l’examen de la requête et à la rayer du rôle conformément à l’article 37 de la Convention.”
In a letter of 4 March 2011 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low.
The Court recalls 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.”
It 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 even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003‑VI; also WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03; Stark and Others v. Finland (striking out), no. 39559/02, § 23, 9 October 2007; Silva Marrafa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 56936/08, 25 May 2010; Karal v. Turkey (dec.), no. 44655/09, 29 March 2011; and Barış İnan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 20315/10, 24 May 2011).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000‑VII; Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, §§ 69-98, ECHR 2006‑V; Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, 11 October 2005; Wende and Kukówka v. Poland, no. 56026/00, 10 May 2007; and Daneshpayeh v. Turkey, no. 21086/04, §§ 28-29, 16 July 2009).
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)).
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).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the case out of the list.
2. As to the complaint about the length of pre-trial detention
The applicant argued under Article 5 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention lasted for an excessively long period of time.
The Court notes that the impugned detention ended when the applicant was released pending trial, on 24 July 2002, more than six months before the application was lodged with the Court. It thus holds that the complaint is inadmissible for non-compliance with the six-month time-limit within the meaning of Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 § 1 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, in so far as it concerns the complaint about the length of proceedings;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Françoise Elens-PassosDavid Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy