CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 12 janvier 2010

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s9D669AF4 { width:140.28pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 25960/03 by Hüseyin DÜZGÜN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 12   January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Ireneu Cabral Barreto,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Danutė Jočienė,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Işıl Karakaş, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 May 2003, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Hüseyin Düzgün, is a Turkish national who lives in Diyarbakır. He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Çınar, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. On 5 May 1999 the applicant was laid off by the Diyarbakır Sur Municipality (“the Municipality”), with which he had been temporarily employed. He subsequently lodged an action before the Diyarbakır Labour Court, claiming outstanding salaries, dismissal indemnities, severance pay and other pecuniary rights. On 11 November 1999 the labour court granted the applicant’s request and ordered the payment of 985,235,634 Turkish liras (TRL), together with interest. On 22   November 1999 this judgment became final. At the date of introduction of the application, the judgment debt was still outstanding. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the authorities’ failure to pay the judgment debt. THE LAW In their observations submitted on 12 March 2008, the Government informed the Court that a friendly settlement agreement had been reached between the applicant and the Municipality on 20 September 2006, by which the applicant had agreed to waive any outstanding compensation claims, rights and other claims, including costs, expenses and legal fees, against the payment of 3,654 Turkish liras (TRY [1] ) in four instalments. Under the said agreement, the applicant had also waived any potential rights and claims in connection with his present application before the Strasbourg Court. The Government maintained, together with supporting documents, that the amount determined had already been paid to the applicant and that he had thus lost his victim status. The applicant submitted in reply that he had accepted the terms of the agreement on account of his financial vulnerability and that the money he received had only constituted a partial payment. He further contended that he had signed the agreement in the absence of his lawyer. The Court notes that under the agreement of 20 September 2006 the applicant did not only voluntarily renounce his right to pursue local remedies against the Municipality in respect of his pecuniary claims, but also expressed a clear intent to discontinue his application before the Court through the waiver provisions. In these circumstances, and relying on its settled case ‑ law (see Çiçek and Öztemel and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   74069/01, 74703/01, 76380/01, 16809/02, 25710/02, 25714/02 and 30383/02, § 24, 3 May 2007), the Court considers that the agreement has removed the applicant’s victim status entirely, as the matter giving rise to this complaint has been “resolved” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. 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   [1] .     On 1 January 2005 the Turkish lira (TRY) entered into circulation, replacing the former Turkish lira (TRL). TRY 1= TRL 1,000,000.