CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 juin 2019

.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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s2DED9654 { width:26.12pt; display:inline-block } .s45C8AC8B { width:146.42pt; display:inline-block } .sAFF36EC2 { width:18.78pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 20972/15 Yakup AYAN and Others against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11   June 2019 as a Committee composed of:   Julia Laffranque, President,   Ivana Jelić,   Arnfinn Bårdsen, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 April 2015, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 14 January 2019 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants’ reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were represented by Mr A. Aktay and Mr U.Ç. Aktay, lawyers practising in Mersin. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicants complained, in particular, of the financial loss they had suffered as a result of late payment of the expropriation compensation awarded to them by the domestic courts. 4.     On 19 October 2017 the complaint concerning Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. 5.     On 22 February 2018 the Government informed the Registry that one of the applicants, Mr Yakup Ayan, had died on 14 January 2017. 6.     By a letter dated 9 March 2018, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was asked to indicate by 30 March 2018 whether Mr Yakup Ayan’s heirs wished to continue the application. Upon the request of the representative, the time-limit was extended until 24 April 2018. However, no response has been received. 7.     After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by letter dated 14   January 2019 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application in so far as it relates to Mr Mehmet Ayan and Ms Sebahat Solak. 8.     The Government acknowledged that the failure of the domestic courts to apply any default interest to the compensation amount constituted an excessive burden on these two applicants and breached their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in the light of the Court’s case-law in   Dökmeci v. Turkey (no. 74155/14, 6 December 2016). They undertook to pay Mr Mehmet Ayan and Ms Sebahat Solak 402 euros, jointly, to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which will be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. This 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 this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from 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 Government further requested the Court to strike out the application. 9.     On 12 March 2019 the Court received a letter from the applicants’ representative informing the Court that Mr Mehmet Ayan and Ms Sebahat Solak had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration. THE LAW 10.     The Court notes that Mr Yakup Ayan died after lodging his application with the Court and that no heirs presented themselves to pursue the procedure. 11.     The Court thus considers this applicant’s heirs may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1   in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application inasmuch as it concerns this applicant. 12.     Therefore, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention in so far as it relates to Mr Yakup Ayan. 13.     The Court finds that following the remaining two applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the remaining of the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. 14.     It therefore 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 remaining of the application. 15.     In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention in so far as it relates to Mr Mehmet Ayan and Ms Sebahat Solak. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article   37 § 1 (a) of the Convention in so far as it relates to Mr Yakup Ayan; Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 4 July 2019.   Hasan Bakırcı   Julia Laffranque   Deputy Registrar   President Appendix       Yakup AYAN was born in 1969.     Mehmet AYAN was born in 1957.     Sebahat SOLAK was born in 1966.