CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .sD79BB263 { width:196.1pt; 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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .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 } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 54849/10 Coşkun BULUT against Turkey and 22 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28   June 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Ksenija Turković, President,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro,   Georges Ravarani, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on different dates, Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 18 February 2016 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to these declarations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were all represented by Mr S. Çalkan, a lawyer practicing in Ankara. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicants complained under Article 5 of the Convention about the room confinement imposed on them by their military superiors as a disciplinary measure. 4.     The applications had been communicated to the Government . 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 applicants complained about the room confinement imposed on them by their military superiors as a disciplinary measure. They relied on Article 5 of the Convention. 7.     After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 18 February 2016, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applicants. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. 8.     The declarations provided all as follows: “«   The Government hereby wishes to express by the way of unilateral declaration that the applicant’s detention by order of his high-ranking commander does not meet the standards enshrined in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the applicant 800 (eight hundred) Euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. This sum will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any further 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 undertakes 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 Government therefore invites the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 §1 (c) of the Convention.   »” 9.     In their letter of 11 April 2016 the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations. 10.     The Court reiterates 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 applications”. 11.     It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of their case to be continued. 12.     To this end, the Court has examined the declarations in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no.   11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no.   28953/03, 18   September 2007). 13.     Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declarations, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, in the particular circumstances of the cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)). 14.     Moreover, 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 applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). 15.     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). 16.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 5 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 21 July 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Ksenija Turković Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence   54849/10 06/08/2010 Coşkun BULUT 01/01/1970 Kayseri     58095/10 03/09/2010 Zafer ÇONGAOĞLU 01/01/1982 Ankara     59512/10 06/08/2010 Fahri BARAN 12/08/1970 Yozgat     74298/10 24/11/2010 Bülent DÜNDAR 25/01/1981 Isparta     25752/11 25/02/2011 Cuma ÖZDEMİR 18/02/1983 Denizli     25764/11 24/02/2011 Kerim YILMAZ 14/05/1973 Ankara     34192/11 15/04/2011 Tayfun İLKAR 01/01/1980 Lefke     42339/11 30/05/2011 Yasin BOLAT 23/04/1988 Denizli     52959/11 30/05/2011 Fatih DOĞANGÜN 10/01/1975 Ankara               52980/11 30/05/2011 Ekrem DURAN 10/01/1984 Aksaray               52991/11 30/05/2011 Mehmet HORUZ 07/03/1984 İstanbul               52993/11 30/05/2011 Murat Veysel KANPAK 28/12/1980 Denizli               55045/11 09/08/2011 Halil GÜRBÜZ 30/04/1988 Adiyaman               55089/11 09/08/2011 Hüseyin YILDIZ 01/01/1971 Adana               55092/11 08/08/2011 Ertan ÖZSEMERCİ 01/01/1977 Tunceli               55137/11 09/08/2011 Emrah ÇUHADAR 03/04/1980 Ankara               58517/11 06/09/2011 Mikail KIZILTAŞ 18/04/1973 Kırıkkale               58545/11 20/06/2011 Hasan KILIÇ 25/03/1976 Ankara             58825/11 19/05/2011 Yaşar KAÇAR 26/06/1964 İzmir             58843/11 25/08/2011 Ahmet KURT 23/04/1983 Uşak               58847/11 25/08/2011 Kazim İYİLER 01/01/1968 İstanbul               61003/11 09/08/2011 Mustafa BAŞARAN 23/05/1990 Kahramanmaraş               61199/11 27/08/2011 Kadir ATUK 10/10/1987 Ordu