SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22658/10
Mustafa SÖNMEZSOY against Turkey
and 4 other applications
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 June 2021 as a Committee composed of:
Branko Lubarda, President,
Pauliine Koskelo,
Marko Bošnjak, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table,
Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The present applications mainly concern the property damage sustained by the applicants following a large underground explosion that took place in Batman on 3 May 2004. The applicants’ complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, concerning their inability to access civil courts to claim damages on account of the allegedly erroneous application of the time-limit rules, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, regarding the alleged violation of their property rights as a result of the explosion, were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”).
By a letter dated 5 February 2020, the Government informed the Court of the death of the applicant Mr Cemal Altun (application no. 32021/11) on 2 November 2018. On 16 April 2020 the applicant’s representative informed the Court of the wish of the heirs to pursue the application and submitted the certificate of inheritance and the authority forms.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision.
The Court takes note of the death of Mr Cemal Altun and of the wish of his heirs (as indicated in the table attached below) to pursue the proceedings he had initiated. It finds that Mr Cemal Altun’s heirs have standing to continue the present proceedings in the applicant’s stead.
The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issues raised under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The Government acknowledged that the civil proceedings that are the subject-matter of the present applications did not meet the standards enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the right of access to court. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts indicated in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amounts 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 these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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 applicants were sent the terms of the Government’s unilateral declarations several weeks before the date of this decision. They refused the terms of the declarations.
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 applicants wish the examination of the cases to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75‑77, ECHR 2003-VI).
The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the right of access to court (see, for example, Kurşun v. Turkey, no. 22677/10, §§ 93-106, 30 October 2018).
Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations as well as the amounts of compensation proposed – which are consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications in this part (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 applications in the part covered by the unilateral declarations (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declarations, the applications may be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (see 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 as regards the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The applicants also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention:
(i) that the State authorities had failed in their positive obligations to take the necessary precautions to avoid the explosion and the resulting damage to their property;
(ii) that the building restrictions imposed by the authorities in the aftermath of the explosion, which were still in force on account of the continuing leakage and risk of further explosions, had severely restricted the use of their property; and
(iii) that they had not been provided with redress for the damage they had sustained despite its recognition by experts.
As regards complaints (i) and (ii), the Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto (see Kurşun, cited above, §§ 109, 125 and 129-33).
It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
As for the applicants’ third complaint (iii) above – concerning their inability to obtain redress for the damage inflicted on their property because of the explosion –, the Court considers that having regard to the Government’s acknowledgment of a violation regarding the shortcomings in the civil proceedings at issue, there is no need to examine the admissibility or the merits of this particular complaint separately (see Kurşun, cited above, § 128).
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Holds that Mr Cemal Altun’s heirs (as indicated in the table attached below) have standing to pursue the proceedings in his stead;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declarations and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike this part of the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Decides that there is no need to examine the admissibility or the merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the applicants’ inability to obtain compensation in respect of their pecuniary damage arising from the explosion;
Declares the remainder of the applications inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 8 July 2021.
{signature_p_2}
Viktoriya MaradudinaBranko Lubarda
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Applications raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
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]
22658/10
30/03/2010
Mustafa SÖNMEZSOY
1953
Çakan Abdulhamit
Batman
22/02/2021
31/03/2021
5,400
22671/10
30/03/2010
Salih OKAY
1955
Emine GÜLMÜŞ
1983
Çakan Abdulhamit
Batman
15/04/2021
07/05/2021
5,400
jointly to the applicants
22687/10
30/03/2010
Abdullah YARGI
1970
Çakan Abdulhamit
Batman
22/02/2021
30/03/2021
6,300
69989/10
03/09/2010
Zübeyir İPEKYÜZ
1963
Çakan Abdulhamit
Batman
22/02/2021
31/03/2021
6,300
32021/11
14/01/2011
Cemal ALTUN
1947
(Died on 02/11/2018)
Heirs
Nurullah Altun
Asiye Topçoğlu
Hacer Direkçi
Celal Altun
Bilal Altun
Ayşete Cengiz
Fethullah Altun
Melike Türkan
İbrahim Altun
Melek Demir
Türkan Taşan
Zehra Yıldız
Leyla Altunbaş
Mehmet Senan Altun
Perihan Altun
Hatun Altun
Erken Mehmet Masum
Batman
22/02/2021
02/04/2021
5,400
jointly to the heirs of Cemal Altun
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy