SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 17473/10
Oya OTYILDIZ against Turkey
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 May 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Ivana Jelić, President,
Arnfinn Bårdsen,
Darian Pavli, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 March 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table.
The applicant was represented by Mr S. Cengiz, a lawyer practising in Izmir.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention concerning the right of access to a court was communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) under Article 6 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention
The Government acknowledged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, 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.
The applicant was sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration on 5 February 2020. The Court has received a response from the applicant refusing the terms of the declaration as she was not satisfied with the amount offered by the Government.
The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.
Thus, it may strike out applications 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 (see, in particular, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established in a number of cases its practice concerning complaints about the breach of right of access to a court where an appeal court declares a case inadmissible by way of a manifest error of assessment on the part of that court (see, for example, Dulaurans v. France, no. 34553/97, §§ 34-39, 21 March 2000, and Sorokin v. Ukraine [Committee], no. 3450/09, § 25, 18 December 2018).
Noting 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)).
In the light of the above considerations, 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).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
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 and of the arrangements 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 18 June 2020.
Liv TigerstedtIvana Jelić
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
(Access to court)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Date of receipt of
Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of
applicant’s comments
Amount awarded for pecuniary
and non-pecuniary damage
and costs and expenses
(in euros)[1]
17473/10
23/03/2010
Oya OTYILDIZ
06/06/1958
21/01/2020
07/02/2020
1,250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy