CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 mai 2019

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B53EBCC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE330DFD7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2DED9654 { width:26.12pt; display:inline-block } .s45C8AC8B { width:146.42pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no.   54601/09 Müslüm Onur DENİZ against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28   May 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Julia Laffranque, President,   Ivana Jelić,   Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 September 2009, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 22 February 2019 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Müslüm Onur Deniz, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Ankara. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about his inability to file an appeal against the decision of the Ankara Commercial Court (decision 29 May 2008, no. 2007/367E, 2008/191K) on account of the refusal of the domestic courts to grant him legal aid. The final decision regarding the applicant’s legal aid request was delivered by the Court of Cassation on 22 June 2009 (no.   2008/10399E, 2009/2922K). 4.     The application had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW 5.     The applicant alleged that he had been denied access to a court on account of the domestic courts’ refusal to grant him legal aid to pay the appeal fees. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention. 6.     After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 22   February 2019 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. 7.     The declaration provided as follows: “I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay the applicant 2,500 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant with a view to resolving the above-mentioned cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum 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 of the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention of 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 them, 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. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. The Government consider that the inability of the applicant to access to a court on account of the Ankara Commercial Court’s refusal to grant him legal aid to pay the court fees, breached his right to a fair trial in the light of the well-established case-law of the Court ( Ilbeyi Kemaloğlu and Meriye Kemaloğlu v. Turkey , no.   19986/06, 10   April 2012). The Government further emphasise that Article 375 §1 (i) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by Law no. 7145 of 31 July 2018, now requires the reopening of the administrative court proceedings in cases where the European Court of Human Rights decides to strike an application out of its list of cases following a friendly settlement or a unilateral declaration. The Government consider that the aforementioned remedy is capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Government respectfully invite the Court to declare that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application and to strike it out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.” 8.     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 application”. 9.     It 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 case to be continued. 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; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no.   11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no.   28953/03, 18   September   2007). 10.     The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of 11.     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 in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37   §   1   (c)). 12.     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 application (Article   37 §   1 in fine ). 13.     The Court considers that this amount should be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points. 14.     Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application 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). 15.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37   §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 20   June 2019.   Hasan Bakırcı   Julia Laffranque   Deputy Registrar   President