CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 décembre 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 } .s9EADC58A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; 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 } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .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. 55657/09 Ahmet ÇELEBİ against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10   December 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 18 September 2009, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 19 September 2019 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 Ahmet Çelebi, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Aydın. He was represented before the Court by Mr   S.   Cengiz, a lawyer practising in İzmir. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about a violation of his right of access to a court. He argued that the domestic courts had rejected his additional compensation claim for bodily injuries as belated in disregard of the fact that his injuries had progressed over time and were discovered after the time-limit had expired. 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 of his additional compensation claim as being out of time. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 6.     After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 19 September 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. The declaration provided as follows: “The Government hereby wish to express by way of unilateral declaration that access to court on account of the domestic courts’ dismissal of his additional claims for compensation as being out of time in the present case fails to satisfy the standards of the Convention. In this connection the Government emphasizes that Article 375 § 1 (i) of the Code of Civil Procedure as amended by Law no. 7145 of 31 July 2018, now requires reopening of civil 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 considers the aforementioned remedy is capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints under the Convention. Consequently, I declare that the Government of Turkey, offer to pay the applicant, Ahmet Çelebi, EUR 3.000 (Three Thousand Euros) to cover any and all pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. These sums will be converted into national currency 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 to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay these sums within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, running 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 before the Court. The Government therefore invite the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They request that the present declaration be accepted by the Court as there was not “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.” 7.     By a letter of 8 October 2019, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. 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. 10.     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). 11.     The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the interpretation of time-limits in disregard of relevant practical circumstances of an applicant (see, for example, mutatis mutandis, Eşim v.   Turkey , no.   59601/09, §§ 16-27, 17 September 2013). 12.     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)). 13.     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 ). 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). 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 § 1 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 9 January 2020.   Hasan Bakırcı   Julia Laffranque   Deputy Registrar   President