SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43699/05
by Feridun İPEKYÜZ
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 9 November 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Danutė Jočienė, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 November 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Feridun İpekyüz, a Turkish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Diyarbakır. He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Gümüş, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.
On 16 April 2010 and 16 September 2010 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against the Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 6,000 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. 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 undertook 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 public policy 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-PassosDanutė Jočienė
Greffière adjointePrésidente
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy