CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 février 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE5EF7E53 { width:190.09pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 19531/02 by Nuri ÖZDEMIR against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 9   February 2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   B.M. Zupančič , President ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mrs   A. Gyulumyan ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 May 2002, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case. Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Nuri Özdemir, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955 and lives in Ankara. He is represented before the Court by Mr   M.   Bektaş, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 20 January 1982 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol ( Devrimci Yol- the Revolutionary Way ). On 4 March 1982 the Ankara martial Law Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. On 17 July 1987 the applicant was released pending trial. On 19 July 1989 the Ankara Martial Law Court convicted the applicant of membership of an illegal organisation and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. On 28 December 1996 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the Ankara Martial Law Court on the ground that the latter had misinterpreted the domestic law in respect of the offence in question. Subsequent to the promulgation of Law no. 3953 on 27 December 1993, which abolished the jurisdiction of the Martial Law Courts, the Ankara Assize Court acquired jurisdiction in the applicant’s case. On 6 May 1996 the Ankara Assize Court commenced the applicant’s trial. The proceedings were still pending before the Ankara Assize Court at the time of application. COMPLAINT The applicant complains that the length of the proceedings have exceeded the reasonable time requirement under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE LAW On 13 December 2005 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case, the Government of Turkey offer to pay ex gratia 20,000 euros (twenty thousand euros) to the applicant. This sum is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs, and it will be payable within three months from the date of the notification of the Court’s decision pursuant to the Article 37 § 1 (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay, until settlement, simple interest on the amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.” On 9 November 2005 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s representative: “In my capacity as the representative of the applicant, Mr Nuri Özdemir, I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay the applicant ex gratia the sum of 20,000 euros (twenty thousand euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses connected with the case, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision delivered pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Having duly consulted the applicant, I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case. This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and the applicant, have reached.” The Court 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 public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Vincent Berger   Boštjan M. Zupančič   Registrar   President