SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28528/11
Mehmet SERİN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 October 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
Helen Keller, judges,
and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 September 2010,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Mehmet Serin, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Izmir. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Çetinkaya, a lawyer practising in Izmir. 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 12 October 2002 the applicant was taken into police custody following a fight he had with a neighbour. The applicant’s wife and his daughter also went to the police station with the applicant. According to the applicant’s submissions, while in police custody he was beaten by the police and threatened with death. Police officers also insulted his wife and his daughter.
On an unspecified date the applicant, his wife and his daughter filed a criminal complaint against the police officers who were on duty in the police station at the relevant time.
On 2 April 2003 the Izmir public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Izmir Criminal Court and accused a number of police officers of ill-treating the applicant, insulting the applicant’s wife and daughter and abuse of official duties.
On 10 October 2007 the Izmir Criminal Court convicted six police officers of ill-treating the applicant and two officers of insulting the applicant’s relatives. Two officers were sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and the remaining four officers were sentenced to three months’ imprisonment. Taking into account the fact that the officers did not have any previous criminal record and that they were state officials, the court decided to suspend the execution of the sentences.
On 21 October 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court holding that the latter should have examined the question as to whether the pronouncement of the judgment could be suspended, pursuant to Article 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271).
On 3 February 2010 the Izmir Criminal Court abided by the decision of the Court of Cassation and examined the applicability of the suspension of the pronouncement of the judgment. It however found it inapplicable and rendered the same judgment.
On 8 April 2011 the Court of Cassation held that the case should be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been ill-treated during his detention in police custody. He further maintained that the national authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment.
The applicant further alleged under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against the police officers had exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement.
THE LAW
On 24 January 2013 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay ex gratia to Mr Mehmet Serin with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 19,500 (nineteen thousand five hundred) euros to cover any and all non-pecuniary damage and 1,500 (one thousand five hundred) euros to cover any and all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
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 the sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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.
In line with the Court’s established case-law, the Government acknowledge that in the present case, the applicant’s being subjected to ill-treatment and failure to conduct an effective investigation against those responsible was incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see, Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 100, ECHR 2000‑VII; Batı and Others v. Turkey, nos. 33097/96 and 57834/00, § 136, ECHR 2004, Taylan v. Turkey, no. 32051/09, § 44, 3 July 2012, Eski v. Turkey, no. 8354/04, § 34, 5 June 2012). In this scope, the Government commit to take measures on preventing the ill-treatment in custody and if any, conducting effective investigation against the persons responsible in accordance with the principles set out by the Convention.
In the light of the above-mentioned, the Government respectfully invite the Court to declare that it is not justified anymore to continue the examination of the application and to strike the case out of its list in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention (see, Cesnieks v. Latvia (dec.), no. 9278/06, §§ 35-38, 6 March 2012; Pekalin and Dudenko v. Russia (dec.), no.56167/08 and 58846/09, 16 October 2012).”
On 25 March 2013 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Suat Çetinkaya, note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay ex gratia Mr Mehmet Serin with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above‑mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 19,500 (nineteen thousand five hundred) euros to cover any and all non-pecuniary damage and 1,500 (one thousand five hundred) euros to cover any and all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
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 the sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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 cases.
Having consulted my client I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
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 reasons to justify a continued examination of the application.
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 in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Seçkin Erel Dragoljub Popović
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy