SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 63746/10
İbrahim Halil YAPRAK against Turkey
and 25 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 February 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Paul Lemmens, President,
Ksenija Turković,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 8 September 2010,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 23 May 2016 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are Turkish nationals. They were all represented by Mr S. Gözkıran, a lawyer practicing in Şanlıurfa.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the infringement of their right of access to a court. They further complained under Article 10 of the Convention that their conviction for having used the word “Sayın”, which is a term of courtesy in their view, violated their right to freedom of expression.
4. The applications were communicated to the Government on 24 March 2014.
THE LAW
5. Given that the applications at hand concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court.
6. The applicants complained about the infringement of their right of access to a court. They further complained that their conviction for having used the word “Sayın”, which is a term of courtesy in their view, violated their right to freedom of expression. They relied on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention.
7. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 23 May 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
8. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government hereby wish to express by way of unilateral declaration its acknowledgement that the applicants, whose names appear in the appended list, were denied the right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”). The Government would like to acknowledge also that the applicants’ right to freedom of expression did not meet the standards enshrined in Article 10 § 1 of the Convention.
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay each applicant 2,500 (two thousand and five hundred) Euros. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses (inclusive of value-added taxes paid on lawyers’ fees), will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any further taxes that may be applicable. It will 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 undertake 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 will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. ”
9. The Court has not received a response from the applicants which accepts the terms of unilateral declaration.
10. 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 applications”.
11. The Court 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 cases to be continued.
12. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration 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)).
13. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the right to freedom of expression (see, for example, Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey, nos. 25764/09 and 18 others,§§ 26-38, 1 October 2013).
14. 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 by the Court in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
15. 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
16. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the applications 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).
17. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications;
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Done in English and notified in writing on 23 March 2017.
Hasan BakırcıPaul Lemmens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No.
Application no.
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Place of residence
Represented by
63746/10
08/09/2010
İbrahim Halil YAPRAK
01/01/1958
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
63755/10
08/09/2010
Müslüm BAYSÖZ
10/09/1956
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
63757/10
08/09/2010
Cemil AKHAN
02/08/1969
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
63760/10
08/09/2010
Necip GÜRSOY
07/03/1943
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
63762/10
08/09/2010
Celal ÜNVERDI
20/03/1954
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64478/10
08/09/2010
Nebi TEKSÖZ
25/11/1964
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64487/10
08/09/2010
Cuma TEKSÖZ
20/06/1982
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64513/10
08/09/2010
Aziz Fazıl SARIBEYLER
29/01/1964
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64526/10
08/09/2010
Halil SARIKAYA
15/07/1952
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64530/10
08/09/2010
Şaban KAYA
18/07/1942
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64534/10
08/09/2010
Ahmet KILIÇ
01/02/1962
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64537/10
08/09/2010
Osman AYALP
07/01/1950
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64543/10
08/09/2010
Mehmet Bozan KARAYILAN
02/02/1972
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64547/10
08/09/2010
Müslüm ATMACA
20/10/1980
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64552/10
08/09/2010
Şükrü AYALP
10/10/1955
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64564/10
08/09/2010
Saıt AYALP
01/01/1974
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64567/10
08/09/2010
Hüseyin KARAYILAN
05/01/1952
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64573/10
08/09/2010
Bayram KURTOĞLU
12/04/1943
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64578/10
08/09/2010
Bayram AYALP
20/10/1969
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64582/10
08/09/2010
Mahmut TAŞ
15/11/1975
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64587/10
08/09/2010
Ethem POLAT
30/01/1963
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64591/10
08/09/2010
Ahmet ÇEPIK
06/02/1965
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64599/10
08/09/2010
Kahraman KORKMAZ
01/02/1960
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64606/10
08/09/2010
Yusuf YEŞILTEPE
15/11/1979
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64615/10
08/09/2010
Hayrettin IŞIK
10/12/1986
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
64630/10
08/09/2010
Müslüm KAYNAK
01/04/1970
ŞANLIURFA
Sedat GÖZKIRAN
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy