CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 février 2017

.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 } .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 } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8031FF69 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s3E3166BC { width:200.1pt; 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 } .s9409E73F { margin-right:9pt; margin-left:9pt; border-collapse:collapse; float:right } .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. 63746/10 İbrahim Halil YAPRAK against Turkey and 25 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28   February 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Ksenija Turković,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 8 September 2010, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 23 May 2016 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are Turkish nationals. They were all represented by Mr S. Gözkıran, a lawyer practicing in Şanlıurfa. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the infringement of their right of access to a court. They further complained under Article 10 of the Convention that their conviction for having used the word “Sayın”, which is a term of courtesy in their view, violated their right to freedom of expression. 4.     The applications were communicated to the Government on 24   March 2014 . THE LAW 5.     Given that the applications at hand concern similar facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of the Court. 6.     The applicants complained about the infringement of their right of access to a court. They further complained that their conviction for having used the word “Sayın”, which is a term of courtesy in their view, violated their right to freedom of expression. They relied on Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention. 7.     After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 23 May 2016 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. 8.     The declaration provided as follows: “The Government hereby wish to express by way of unilateral declaration its acknowledgement that the applicants, whose names appear in the appended list, were denied the right of access to a court within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”). The Government would like to acknowledge also that the applicants’ right to freedom of expression did not meet the standards enshrined in Article 10 § 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay each applicant 2,500 (two thousand and five hundred) Euros. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses (inclusive of value-added taxes paid on lawyers’ fees), 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 undertake 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 invite 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.     The Court has not received a response from the applicants which accepts the terms of unilateral declaration. 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.     The Court also reiterates 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 cases to be continued. 12.     To this end, the Court has examined the declaration 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)). 13.     The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of the right to freedom of expression (see, for example, Yalçınkaya and Others v. Turkey , nos. 25764/09 and 18 others,§§ 26-38, 1 October 2013). 14.     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 by the Court in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article   37   §   1   (c)). 15.     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 ). 16.     Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the applications 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). 17.     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; Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; 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 23 March 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President Appendix No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   63746/10 08/09/2010 İbrahim Halil YAPRAK 01/01/1958 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN   63755/10 08/09/2010 Müslüm BAYSÖZ 10/09/1956 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN   63757/10 08/09/2010 Cemil AKHAN 02/08/1969 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN   63760/10 08/09/2010 Necip GÜRSOY 07/03/1943 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN   63762/10 08/09/2010 Celal ÜNVERDI 20/03/1954 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN   64478/10 08/09/2010 Nebi TEKSÖZ 25/11/1964 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN   64487/10 08/09/2010 Cuma TEKSÖZ 20/06/1982 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN   64513/10 08/09/2010 Aziz Fazıl SARIBEYLER 29/01/1964 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN   64526/10 08/09/2010 Halil SARIKAYA 15/07/1952 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64530/10 08/09/2010 Şaban KAYA 18/07/1942 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64534/10 08/09/2010 Ahmet KILIÇ 01/02/1962 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64537/10 08/09/2010 Osman AYALP 07/01/1950 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64543/10 08/09/2010 Mehmet Bozan KARAYILAN 02/02/1972 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64547/10 08/09/2010 Müslüm ATMACA 20/10/1980 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64552/10 08/09/2010 Şükrü AYALP 10/10/1955 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64564/10 08/09/2010 Saıt AYALP 01/01/1974 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64567/10 08/09/2010 Hüseyin KARAYILAN 05/01/1952 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64573/10 08/09/2010 Bayram KURTOĞLU 12/04/1943 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64578/10 08/09/2010 Bayram AYALP 20/10/1969 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64582/10 08/09/2010 Mahmut TAŞ 15/11/1975 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64587/10 08/09/2010 Ethem POLAT 30/01/1963 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64591/10 08/09/2010 Ahmet ÇEPIK 06/02/1965 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64599/10 08/09/2010 Kahraman KORKMAZ 01/02/1960 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64606/10 08/09/2010 Yusuf YEŞILTEPE 15/11/1979 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64615/10 08/09/2010 Hayrettin IŞIK 10/12/1986 ŞANLIURFA   Sedat GÖZKIRAN             64630/10 08/09/2010 Müslüm KAYNAK 01/04/1970 ŞANLIURFA Sedat GÖZKIRAN