CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 novembre 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 } .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 } .s172EF8F1 { width:208.76pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no.   8741/10 Ömer YAZGAN against Turkey and 6 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21   November 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Ledi Bianku, 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 A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were all represented by G. Candoğan, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the non-communication of the Chief Public Prosecutor’s written opinion to them during the appeal proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court had violated their right to an adversarial and fair hearing. On 16 August 2017 and 13 September 2017 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties 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 them each 500 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into national currency 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 cases. THE LAW Given that the applications at hand 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. 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 14 December 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Ledi Bianku Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence   8741/10 02/02/2010 Ömer YAZGAN 01/01/1948 ANKARA     9415/10 02/02/2010 Sevgi ŞENTÜRK 21/07/1971 Ankara     19814/10 25/02/2010 İsmail AKYILDIZ 18/02/1957 Ankara     19821/10 25/02/2010 Esen KALAN 22/04/1969 Ankara     26286/10 07/04/2010 Mehmet KAZ 01/07/1958 Manisa     26811/10 08/04/2010 Bektaş EROĞLU 19/03/1963 Ankara     39588/10 17/05/2010 Gülşen ORHAN 25/08/1977 Ankara