CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 novembre 2007

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE950BED4 { width:22.54pt; display:inline-block } .s6D0D14F0 { width:176.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3C863F58 { width:8.46pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC8FD2BDB { width:1.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 26119/02 by Mehmet Ali KOLAY and Others (former ALBAYRAK and Others) against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22   November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   B.M. Zupančič , President ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   R. Türmen ,   Mrs   A. Gyulumyan ,   Mr   E. Myjer ,   Mr   David Thór Björgvinsson ,   Mrs   I. Ziemele, judges , and Mr S. Naısmıth , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 August 2001, Having regard to the partial decision of 1 June 2006, 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 applicants, whose names and birth dates appear in the appendix, are Turkish nationals. They were represented before the Court by Ms S. Gürcan, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On different dates between 1980 and 1981 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation and subsequently detained on remand within the context of criminal proceedings brought against them. Between 1984 and 1991 the applicants were released pending trial. On 27 September 1984 the Istanbul Martial Law Court convicted the applicants under Article 146 of the Criminal Code. On 6 June 1990 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. On 6 April 1993 the Istanbul Martial Law Court once again convicted the applicants under Article 146 of the Criminal Code. Following promulgation of the Law of 26 December 1994, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation acquired jurisdiction over the case and the case file was sent to it. On 27 September 2000 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court in respect of Muhittin Özbay, Veli Metin Ulu and Özcan Uslu. It further ordered that the criminal proceedings against Muzaffer Karakoç, Adil Tatar, Ömer Müjdat Tekinalp, İbrahim Yirik, Turgay Gürcan, Adnan Alin, Aslan Çağlayan, Nazlı Çağlayan, Nilüfer Küçüktay and Mehmet Ali Kolay be terminated on the ground that the statutory time limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Turkish Criminal Code had expired. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. THE LAW On 1 October 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay ex gratia to each of the seventeen applicants (Mr Mehmet Ali Kolay, Mr Özcan Uslu, Mr Aslan Çağlayan, Mr   Adil Tatar, Ms Nazlı Çağlayan, Mr Adnan Alin, Mr İbrahim Yirik, Mr Ömer Müjdat Tekinalp, Ms Nilüfer Küçüktay, Mr Muzaffer Karakoç, Mr Turgay Gürcan, Mr   Muhittin Özbay, Mr Veli Metin Ulu, Mr Turan Ulu, Mr Cihan Durmuş, Mr Battal Ugun [1] and Mr Ayhan Güven Koçulu) an all-inclusive amount of EUR 6,500 (six thousand five hundred euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned application pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which also covers legal expenses connected with the case, shall be free of any tax that may be applicable and be paid in euros, to be converted into New Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of payment, to a bank account named by the applicants and/or their duly authorised representative. It shall be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision delivered by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final settlement 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 3 September 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicants: “I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay ex gratia to each of the applicants (Mr Mehmet Ali Kolay, Mr Özcan Uslu, Mr Aslan Çağlayan, Mr Adil Tatar, Ms Nazlı Çağlayan, Mr Adnan Alin, Mr İbrahim Yirik, Mr Ömer Müjdat Tekinalp, Ms Nilüfer Küçüktay, Mr Muzaffer Karakoç, Mr Turgay Gürcan, Mr   Muhittin Özbay, Mr Veli Metin Ulu, Mr Turan Ulu, Mr Cihan Durmuş, Mr Battal Ugun 1 and Mr Ayhan Güven Koçulu) an all-inclusive amount of EUR 6,500 (six thousand five hundred euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned application pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as legal costs and expenses connected with the case, shall be paid in euros, to be converted into New Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of payment, to a bank account named by me. It shall be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision delivered by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 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. 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 settlement of the case. This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and I 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). In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Stanley Naısmıth   Boštjan M. Zupančič Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   List of the applicants   1.   Mehmet Ali Kolay, who was born 1956, resides in Istanbul. 2.   Özcan Uslu, who was born 1961, resides in Istanbul. 3.   Aslan Çağlayan, who was born in 1955, resides in Istanbul. 4.   Adil Tatar, who was born in 1952, resides in Istanbul. 5.   Nazlı Çağlayan, who was born in 1959, resides in Istanbul. 6.   Adnan Alin, who was born in 1957, resides in Kars. 7.   İbrahim Yirik, who was born in 1954, resides in Istanbul. 8.   Ömer Müjdat Tekinalp, who was born in 1962, resides in Istanbul. 9.   Nilüfer Küçüktay, who was born 1961, resides in Istanbul. 10.   Muzaffer Karakoç, who was born in 1960, resides in Istanbul. 11.   Turgay Gürcan, who was born in 1962, resides in Istanbul. 12.   Muhittin Özbay, who was born in 1953, resides in Istanbul. 13.   Veli Metin Ulu, who was born in 1961, resides in Istanbul. 14.   Turan Ulu, who was born in 1956, resides in Istanbul. 15.   Cihan Durmuş, who was born in 1956, resides in Istanbul. 16.   Battal Ugun [2] , who was born in 1960, resides in Istanbul. 17.   Ayhan Güven Koçulu, who was born in 1960, resides in Istanbul. 1.     Rectified on 26 March 2007. The name of Battal Ugun was spelled as Battal Uğun. 1.     Rectified on 26 March 2007. The name of Battal Ugun was spelled as Battal Uğun.