SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10194/05
by Cemal ŞEN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 March 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having regard to the partial decision of 17 March 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Cemal Şen, is a Turkish national who was born in 1950 and lives in Ankara. He was represented before the Court by Mr H. Çetin, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
On 17 March 2009 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of civil proceedings which began on 30 December 1996 and ended on 21 September 2004.
On 15 May February 2009 and 3 June 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties by which the applicant 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 him 2,700 euros to cover any 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 free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum would 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 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 would 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.
Sally DolléFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy