CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 octobre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sAB55E796 { width:26.35pt; display:inline-block } .s6E8303AC { width:184.61pt; display:inline-block } .sB622B88D { width:38.36pt; display:inline-block } .sD5CCF864 { width:129.92pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 63666/09 Semra KINALIOĞLU against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15   October 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Dragoljub Popović, President,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Helen Keller, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 November 2009, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Ms Semra Kınalıoğlu, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Bursa. She was represented before the Court by Ms M. Aktaş, a lawyer practising in Bursa. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     On 4 December 2008 the Karacabey Civil Court of General Jurisdiction accepted the case brought by the applicant against a third party, concerning the registration of a property. 4.     On 28 July 2009 the Civil Court of General Jurisdiction rejected the applicant’s request for a copy of the judgment in order to start the enforcement proceedings as neither party had paid the required fees of TRY   3,085. Relying on Sections 27, 28 § 1 (a), 32 and 37 of the Law on Fees (Law no. 492), the court stated that the copy of the judgment could not be served on the parties unless the fees for the judgment and the writ of execution were paid. 5.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her right of access to a court and right to peaceful enjoyment of property had been violated in that she could not have the judgment in her favour executed due to the other party’s failure to pay the required court fees. 6.     On 17 February 2011, the case was communicated to the Government. 7.     On 7 June 2012 and 23 July 2012 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay her the outstanding judgment debt and EUR 3,500 (three thousand five hundred euros) to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be 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. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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 LAW 8.     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 reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. 9.     In view of the above, it is appropriate 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 in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.   Seçkin Erel   Dragoljub Popović   Acting Deputy Registrar   President