SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 59796/10
Hüseyin UZUNDAĞ and Others against Turkey
(see appended table)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14 May 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Ivana Jelić, President,
Arnfinn Bårdsen,
Darian Pavli, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 August 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, and the applicants’ replies to this declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The list of applicants is set out in the appended table.
The applicants were represented by Mrs G. Altay, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The applicants’ complaints under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention concerning the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings stemming from the systemic restriction imposed on their right of access to a lawyer and the use by the trial court of their statements allegedly obtained under duress and in the absence of a lawyer to convict them as well as the complaint concerning the lack of legal assistance during the trial in respect of the second and the third applicants were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”).
The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application.
The Government acknowledged the violation of the applicants’ rights under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention in the light of the Court’s well-established case-law. They offered to pay the applicants the amounts detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application 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 before the European Court of Human Rights.
The applicants informed the Court that they agreed to the terms of the declaration.
THE LAW
The Court finds that, following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.
It therefore 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 the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the application.
The Court would like to draw attention to the fact that on 25 July 2018 the Turkish Parliament has adopted Law no. 7145. Articles 4, 17, 18 and 19 of this new law provide for a right to request the re-opening of domestic court proceedings following the Court’s decision to strike out a case on the basis of a friendly settlement or unilateral declaration. In particular, according to the Court’s case-law and practice, the re-opening of the domestic proceedings is the most appropriate way to provide an effective solution to an alleged breach of Article 6 of the Convention. Thus, it is considered that the aforementioned remedy is capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. Bearing in mind the Court’s subsidiary role in protecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and its protocols, it is recalled that it falls in the first place to the national authorities to redress any violation 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 in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 4 June 2020.
Liv TigerstedtIvana Jelić
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 and 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention
(Lack of Legal Assistance)
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Date of birth
Representative’s name and location
Date of receipt of Government’s declaration
Date of receipt of applicant’s acceptance
Amount awarded for pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage and
costs and expenses
per applicant
(in euros)[1]
59796/10
29/08/2010
(6 applicants)
Hüseyin UZUNDAĞ
01/10/1984
Caner ULUÇ
01/01/1983
Coşkun AKDENIZ
01/01/1984
Sinan GÜLÜM
15/03/1983
Baysal DEMIRHAN
01/01/1977
Cihan KARAMAN
01/01/1983
Altay Gül
Istanbul
25/09/2019
28/10/2019
500
[1]. Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy