CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 30 janvier 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .sC66E01D3 { width:215.45pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 39636/02 by Kamil KILINÇ and Others against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30   January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Mr   J. Casadevall,   Mr   R. Türmen,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi,   Mr   L. Garlicki,   Ms   L. Mijović,   Mr   J. Šikuta, judges, and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 October 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Kamil Kılınç, Mr Kazım Yamacı and Ms Rahime Yamacı are Turkish nationals who were born in 1952, 1956 and 1954 respectively and live in Siverek (Şanlıurfa). They are represented before the Court by Mr M. Güzeler, a lawyer practising in Şanlıurfa. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In 1965 the authorities conducted a land registry survey in the Siverek District of Şanlıurfa and revised the local plans. Following this revision, it was registered in the Land Registry that the applicants had a total share of 1/160 in respect of thirteen plots of land. When the local plans became final in 1978, the applicants challenged this decision, alleging that their share should have been registered as 1/8. On 21 March 1978 the applicants brought an action in the Siverek Land Registry Court and requested that the records in the Land Registry be revised. In 1987 the case was transferred to the Siverek Cadastre Court, where the case is still pending. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings, which are still pending before the domestic court since 1978. The applicants further allege under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that due to the excessive length of the proceedings, they have been deprived of their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. THE LAW On 6 November 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay ex gratia to the applicants an all-inclusive amount of EUR 13,500 (thirteen thousand five hundred euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned application pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which also covers legal expenses connected with the case, shall be free of any tax that may be applicable and be paid in euros, to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of payment, to a bank account named by the applicants and/or their duly authorised representative. It shall be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision delivered by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final settlement 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 22 February 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s representative: “I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay ex gratia to the applicants an all-inclusive amount of EUR 13,500 (thirteen thousand five hundred euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned application pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as legal costs and expenses connected with the case, shall be paid in euros, to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of payment, to a bank account named by us. It shall be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision delivered 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, 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. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts of this application. I 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 I have reached.” The Court 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 its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President