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 } .sCA1147F8 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 Application no. 30844/96 by Hüsna KIRAÇ 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 application 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 application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND COMPLAINTS The applicant is a Turkish national living in the Lice district of the province of Diyarbakır (Turkey). She is represented before the Court by Mr   Hasip Kaplan, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. In her application the applicant complained that her daughter was killed and her house 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. She alleged that her rights guaranteed by Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention and Article   1   of Protocol No. 1 had been violated. PROCEDURE Following informal contacts between the applicant’s 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 applicant withdraw the application on the condition that the Government pay to the applicant the sum of 18,000 pounds sterling free of any taxes which may be applicable and to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment. By letters of 19 January and 2 February 2001 the Government and the applicant respectively agreed to the proposal. THE LAW The Court takes note of the applicant’s withdrawal of the application 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 application. For these reasons, the Court Decides to disjoin the application from the other 201 Lice applications; Decides to strike the application out of the list.   Erik Fribergh   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President