SECOND SECTION
DECISION
This version has been rectified on 7 February 2017
under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.
Application no. 23700/12
Mehmet TÜRKEŞ and Mevlüt KAPLAN
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10 January 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Valeriu Griţco, President,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
Georges Ravarani, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 March 2012,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 July 2016 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicants, Mr Mehmet Türkeş and Mr Mevlüt Kaplan, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1994 and 1995 respectively and live in Diyarbakır. They were represented before the Court by Ms K. Yılmaz and Ms R. Yalçındağ Baydemir, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On 20 April 2011 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation. At that time, they were both minors.
5. On 24 April 2011 the applicants were brought before the Diyarbakır Magistrates’ Court, which ordered their detention on remand.
6. On 10 May 2011 the Diyarbakır public prosecutor filed an indictment against the applicants.
7. On 6 April 2012 the applicants were released from detention on remand pending trial.
8. On 5 March 2013 the Diyarbakır Juvenile Assize Court convicted the applicants and decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment. On 13 March 2013 this decision became final.
COMPLAINTS
9. The applicants complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of their pre-trial detention.
THE LAW
10. Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention the applicants complained that the length of their pre-trial detention had been excessive.
11. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 13 July 2016, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
12. The declaration provided as follows:
“I declare that the Government offer to pay ex gratia to each applicant 1,250 (one thousand two hundred fifty) euros (EUR) to cover any and all damages and EUR 400 (four hundred) jointly to cover any and all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
These sums, which are considered to be appropriate in the light of the jurisprudence of the Court, cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and shall be paid in Turkish Liras, free of any tax that may be applicable. These sums shall be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government considers that in the present case, the length of the applicants’ detention on remand was not in accordance with the requirements established by the case-law of the Court, failed to meet the standards enshrined in Article 5 § 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Cahit Demirel v. Turkey, no. 18623/03. 7 July 2009). The Government respectfully invites 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 lists in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.”
13. By a letter of 10 October 2016, the applicants’ lawyer indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.
14. The Court reiterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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”.
15. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application 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.
16. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, § 75-77, ECHR 2003‑VI; WAZA SP. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
17. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the length of detention (see, for example, Nart v. Turkey, no. 20817/04, §§ 28-35, 6 May 2008)
18. Having regard to the nature of 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)).
19. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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).
20. The Court considers that this amount should be converted into currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.
21. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
22. 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 under Article 5 § 3[1] of the Convention and of the modalities 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 2 February 2017.
Hasan BakırcıValeriu Griţco
Deputy RegistrarPresident
[1] Rectified on 7 February 2017: the text was “Article 5 § 4”
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy