CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 septembre 2016

.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 } .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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4F2ADFDB { text-align:center; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .sBB6163A7 { width:2.48pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3A357E38 { text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; list-style-position:inside } .s1DE04BC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:8pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no.   38890/10 Murat GENÇ against Turkey and 6 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1   September 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 the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”). In some of the applications, complaints based on the same facts were also communicated under other provisions of the Convention. The Court received 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, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay them the amounts detailed in the appended table. These amounts will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three   months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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 Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 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 the Protocols thereto 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 22 September 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Nebojša Vučinić Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX No. Application no. Date of introduction Applicant name Date of birth / Date of registration Representative name and location Other complaints under well-established case-law   Date of receipt of Government declaration Date of receipt of Applicant’s declaration Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant / household (in euros) [i] Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application (in euros) [ii]     38890/10 10/05/2010 Murat GENÇ 1969 Erbil Mehmet Istanbul   21/06/2016 05/02/2016 6,900 500     47641/10 15/07/2010 Suat ÇALIŞKAN 1981 Kaya Abdulhakim Istanbul Art.   5   (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - The lack of communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion. (See Altınok v.   Turkey), Art.   5   (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - To be communicated in connection with Article   5 §§ 3 and   4. 21/06/2016 04/04/2016 4,800 500     40468/11 17/01/2011 Ahmet KÖTEN 1980       21/06/2016 04/03/2016 4,000       50983/11 13/06/2011 Fehim DAĞDANA 1976 Kaya Abdulhakim Istanbul Art.   5   (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - non-communication of the public prosecutor’s opinion (Altınok v.   Turkey) 21/06/2016 04/04/2016 4,500 500     72832/11 10/11/2011 Canan TİKVA 1980 Bıçakcı Can Istanbul   21/06/2016 03/02/2016 2,600 500     63884/12 02/08/2012 Nurican AKKALE 1991 Çalışcı Hüseyin Istanbul Art.   5   (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention - This complaint should be communicated in connection with the complaint raised under Article   5 §   3. 21/06/2016 12/02/2016 2,400 500     78019/12 06/09/2012 İbrahim BALANDI 1975 Çalışcı Hüseyin Istanbul Art.   5   (5) - lack of, or inadequate, compensation for unlawful arrest or detention. 21/06/2016 12/02/2016 3,000 500   [i] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. [ii] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.