CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 mai 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF6214565 { width:138.93pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s2F7F4368 { width:167.84pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 32777/09 Civan BOLTAN against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21   May 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Dragoljub Popović, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Helen Keller, judges, and, Françoise Elens-Passos Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 June 2009, Having regard to the partial decision of 27 March 2012, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 30 July 2012 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Civan Boltan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1991 and lives in Diyarbakır He was represented before the Court by Mr   M.   Beştaş and Ms M. Danış Beştaş, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicant complained under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of both his pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant was released pending trial at the hearing held on 17   March 2009. The above-mentioned complaints had been communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible with the partial decision dated 27 March 2012 . THE LAW The applicant complained about length of his pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings. He relied on Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 30 July 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “Je déclare que le gouvernement de la République de Turquie offre de verser au requérant M. Civan BOLTAN la somme de 3.000 (trois mille) euros couvrant tout préjudice matériel et moral, plus tout montant pouvant être du à titre d’impôt par le requérant. Cette somme sera convertie en livres turques au taux applicable à la date du paiement, et exempte de toute taxe éventuellement applicable. Elle sera payée dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision de la Cour rendue conformément à l’article 37 § 1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. A défaut de règlement dans ledit délai, le Gouvernement s’engage à verser, à compter de l’expiration de celui-ci et jusqu’au règlement effectif de la somme en question, un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage. Ce versement vaudra règlement définitif de l’affaire. Le Gouvernement considère que la procédure pénale engagée à l’encontre du requérant a connu une durée excessive au sens de la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour ( Daneshpayeh c. Turquie , no 21086/04, 16 juillet 2009). Le Gouvernement reconnaît également qu’en l’espèce, la durée globale de la détention provisoire du requérant a porté atteinte à son droit garanti par l’article 5 § 3 de la Convention ( Nart c.   Turquie , no 20817/04). Il invite respectueusement la Cour à dire qu’il ne se justifie plus de poursuivre l’examen de la requête et à la rayer du rôle conformément à l’article 37 de la Convention.” By a letter of 15 November 2012, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37 §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR   2003 ‑ VI; also WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no.   11602/02, 26   June 2007; Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03; Stark and Others v.   Finland (striking out), no. 39559/02, § 23, 9 October 2007; Silva Marrafa v.   Portugal (dec.), no. 56936/08, 25 May 2010; Karal v. Turkey (dec.), no.   44655/09, 29 March 2011; and Barış İnan v. Turkey (dec.), no.   20315/10, 24 May 2011). The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the length of detention (see, for example, Cahit Demirel v. Turkey , no. 18623/03, 7   July 2009) and criminal proceedings (see, for example, Daneshpayeh v.   Turkey , no.   21086/04, §§ 28-29, 16 July 2009). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)). In this connection, it should be pointed out that the Court attaches particular importance to the fact that the applicant’s detention on remand came to an end on 17 March 2009 ( Zdziarski v.   Poland , no. 14239/09, §§ 22-24, 25 January 2011 and Bieniek v. Poland , no.   46117/07, § 22, 1 June 2010). In light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4   March 2008). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Françoise Elens-Passos   Dragoljub Popović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President