CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 octobre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB8BE277E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:48pt; font-size:14pt } .sAC001F88 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s93B30DFA { width:207.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 39233/98 by Ayça TAŞKAYA and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2   October   2003 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   B. Zupančič ,   Mrs   H.S. Greve ,   Mr   K. Traja, judges , and   Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 19 March 1997, Having regard to the Commission’s partial decision of 9 September 1998, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case submitted by the applicants and the Government on 4   March   2003 and 31 March 2003 respectively, Having deliberated, decides as follows:   THE FACTS The applicants, Ayça Taşkaya, Ali Çamyar and Birol Cüce, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1977, 1969 and 1975 respectively. By a letter of 17 October 2002 the applicants’s representative informed the Court that Ali Çamyar had died on 2 January 2002 and that his father wished to pursue the application. They are represented before the Court by Mrs Z.S. Özdoğan, a   lawyer practising in İzmir. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 7 September 1996 policemen from the anti-terrorist branch of the Izmir Security Directorate arrested the applicants. The policemen suspected that the applicants were members of an illegal organisation, the TIKB (Turkish Revolutionary Communists Union). On 19 September 1996 the İzmir State Security Court ordered the applicants to be detained on remand. On 22 October 1996 the Public Prosecutor attached to the İzmir State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicants. He accused them of being members of an illegal terrorist organisation and requested the court to apply Article 168 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code and Article 5 of Law No.3713. COMPLAINT The applicants complain under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that they were kept in police custody for an excessive period of time. THE LAW On 31 March 2003, the Court received the following declaration from the Government : “I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Turkey offer to pay 13,916 (thirteen thousand and nine hundred sixteen) euros to Ayça Taşkaya, Ali Çamyar[‘s heirs] and Birol   Cüce. This sum will be payable within three months from the date of delivery of the [decision] by the Court pursuant to the Article 37 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay, until settlement, simple interest on the amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points...” On 4 March 2003, the Court received the following declaration from the representative of the applicants : “We note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay us the sum of 13,916   that (thirteen thousand and nine hundred sixteen) euros to Ayça Taşkaya, Ali   Çamyar[‘s heirs] and Birol   Cüce with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. We accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts of this application. We declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case. This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and we/the applicants have reached ...”   The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols and considers that there is no reason which would justify the continuation of the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of the Court). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President