CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 mars 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s20FDDAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA32F7E3F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s6B64E62F { width:203.14pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Applications nos. 30839/96, 30841/96, 30842/96, 30847-30851/96, 30853/96, 30958-30960/96 by A. Hakim AKAN, Sait and Abdullah SATAN, Bedir DOMAN, Sait   TEKTAŞ, Bedih and Bedir TEKİNHAN, Turan HARMAN, Hasan   BOZKUŞ, Ahmet AKGEYİK, Feyzi KANLIBAŞ and Emin SAÇAL against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22   March 2001 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mr   M. Fischbach , judges ,   Mr   F. Gölcüklü , ad hoc judge , and Mr E. Fribergh , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above applications introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 15 December 1995 and registered on 26   March 1996, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the applications was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND COMPLAINTS The applicants are Turkish nationals living in the Lice district of the province of Diyarbakır (Turkey). They are represented before the Court by Mr   Hasip Kaplan, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. In their applications the applicants complained that their houses and shops were destroyed as a result of the random and disproportionate gunfire of the security forces in the course of clashes between the latter and PKK militants in Lice. They alleged that their rights guaranteed by Articles 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention and Article   1   of Protocol No. 1 had been violated. PROCEDURE Following informal contacts between the applicants’ and the Government’s representatives, the Section Registrar was asked to assist the parties in reaching a solution to the matter. As a result, the Registrar proposed that the applicants withdraw the applications on the condition that the Government pay to the applicants the sums stated below free of any taxes which may be applicable and to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment:   No. Application No. Name of the Applicant The Registrar’s proposal: Pounds sterling 1 30839/96 A. Hakim AKAN 10,000 2 30841/96 Sait SATAN 10,000 3 30842/96 Abdullah SATAN 10,000 4 30847/96 Bedir DOMAN 10,000 5 30848/96 Sait TEKTAŞ 10,000 6 30849/96 Bedih TEKİNHAN 15,000 7 30850/96 Bedir TEKİNHAN 10,000 8 30851/96 Turan HARMAN 10,000 9 30853/96 Hasan BOZKUŞ 15,000 10 30958/96 Ahmet AKGEYİK 15,000 11 30959/96 Feyzi KANLIBAŞ 10,000 12 30960/96 Emin SAÇAL 10,000   By letters of 19 January and 2 February 2001 the Government and the applicants respectively agreed to the proposal. THE LAW The Court takes note of the applicants’ withdrawal of the applications on the basis of the agreement reached between the parties (Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention). The Court considers that there is no reason which would justify the continuation of the examination of the applications. For these reasons, the Court Decides to disjoin the instant applications from the other 201 Lice applications; Decides to join the instant applications; Decides to strike the applications out of the list.   Erik Fribergh   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President