CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 juillet 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 } .s25F5CC02 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .s635176F2 { width:141.94pt; display:inline-block } .s9B753B46 { width:198.3pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 9087/03 by Süleyman GÜLER against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Antonella Mularoni,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Danutė Jočienė,   Dragoljub Popović,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 January 2003, Having regard to the Court’s decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention), Having regard to the partial decision of 20 November 2007, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Süleyman Güler, is a Turkish national who was born in 1937 and lives in Istanbul. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 24 June 1982 the applicant concluded a contract with a certain A.Ş.G., according to which the latter agreed to sell some land to the applicant. Subsequently, A.Ş.G. transferred the ownership of only part of the land to the applicant. On 3 August 1987 A.Ş.G. died. On 18 July 1995 the applicant lodged a case with the Silivri Magistrate’s Court, requesting his registration as the owner of the whole plot. He claimed that he had paid the full value of the land and that A.Ş.G., and subsequently his heirs, had failed to respect their contractual obligations. The heirs of A.Ş.G. lodged a counter-claim, alleging the applicant’s bad faith. The two cases were joined. After various intermediary decisions, on 14 May 2002 the Silivri Magistrate’s Court dismissed the applicant’s request and annulled the contract. On 15 October 2002 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment and, on an unspecified date, the applicant’s rectification request was dismissed. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had not been concluded within a reasonable time. THE LAW The Court received the following declaration from the Government’s Agent:   “I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay ex gratia the sum of 2,300 (two thousand three hundred) euros (i.e. 1,800 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 500 euros in respect of cost and expenses) to Mr Süleyman Güler 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 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.”   The Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:   “I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay me ex gratia the sum of 2,300 (two thousand three hundred) euros (i.e. 1,800 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 500 euros in respect of cost and expenses) 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 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.     Françoise Elens-Passos   Françoise Tulkens   Deputy Registrar   President