CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 juin 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC3D571B0 { width:197.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s8BB6D734 { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sCC7C249F { height:121.2pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s33B8305F { height:61pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 39978/07 Cahit İLBOĞA against Turkey and 3 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14   June 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Nebojša Vučinić, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on dates set out in the appendix, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicants complained under Articles 8 § 1 and/or 10 § 1 of the Convention about a breach of their right to respect for their correspondence. 4.     On the dates set out in the appendix, the parties signed friendly settlement declarations under which the applicants agreed to waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications against an undertaking by the Government to pay 200 euros each to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses. The amounts will be converted into Turkish lira at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. Each sum 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 these sums 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 cases. THE LAW 5.     Having regard to the fact that the present applications concern the same facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the rules of Court. 6.     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 applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 7 July 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President Appendix No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant’s Date of birth Place of residence Date of applicant’s friendly settlement declaration Date of Government’s friendly settlement declaration   39978/07 30/07/2007 Cahit İLBOĞA 20/06/1973 Tekirdağ 01/02/2016 25/02/2016   56188/08 11/02/2008 İdris ÇALIŞKAN 01/01/1973 İzmir 18/11/2015 25/02/2016   27109/15 21/07/2008 İdris ÇALIŞKAN 01/01/1973 İzmir 16/11/2015 25/02/2016   28676/15 25/02/2008 Abdullah AYDIN 01/03/1971 Şanlıurfa 26/10/2015 25/02/2016