CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 mars 2008

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sA5E34492 { width:18.86pt; display:inline-block } .sB2998F02 { width:154.72pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 195/03 by İsmet BÜLBÜL against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18   March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Rıza Türmen,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Egbert Myjer,   Ineta Ziemele,   Luis López Guerra,   Ann Power, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar . Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 November 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 İsmet Bülbül, is a Turkish national who was born in   1971 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr   M.   A.   Kırdök and Mrs M. Kırdök, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the   Government”) were represented by their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 27 November 1992 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Sol (Devrimci Sol – Revolutionary Left). On 10 December 1992 the applicant was detained on remand. On 5 January 1993 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed a bill of indictment against the applicant along with twenty-nine other persons. The applicant was charged with attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code. By Law no. 5190 of 16 June 2004, published in the Official Gazette on   30   June 2004, state security courts were abolished. The case against the applicant was transferred to the Istanbul Assize Court. On 27 October 2004 the Istanbul Assize Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On 18 July 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Assize Court and remitted the case to the Istanbul Assize Court. On 2 December 2005 the applicant was released pending trial. According to the information in the case file based on the latest submissions by the parties, the case is still pending before the Istanbul Assize Court. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand had been excessive. THE LAW On 7 November 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I declare that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay ex gratia 10,000   (ten   thousand) euros to Mr İsmet Bülbül with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into new Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken 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 simple interest on it, 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.” On 3 May 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by one of the applicant’s representatives: “I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of 10,000 (ten thousand) euros to Mr İsmet Bülbül with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into new Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 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. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” 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.   Santiago Quesada   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President