CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8E1B9F9 { width:203.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 65321/12 Erdal GÜZELGÜL 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 11 September 2012, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 31 August 2016 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Erdal Güzelgül, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1989 and lives in Erzurum. He was represented before the Court by Mr   H.   Boğatekin, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention about the non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion during the proceedings to challenge the lawfulness of his detention and the right to compensation under domestic law in respect of this complaint. 4.     The application was communicated to the Government. 5.     After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by letter dated 31   August 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. 6.     They acknowledged a violation of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention. They undertook to pay the applicant 170   euros   (EUR) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as EUR 170 for costs and expenses, which will be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from 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. They further requested the Court to strike out the application. 7.     On 10 October 2010, the Court received a letter from the applicant informing the Court that he had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration. THE LAW 8.     The Court finds that following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. 9.     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 its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. 10.     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 pursuant to Article   39 of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 2 February 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Valeriu Griţco Deputy Registrar   President