CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 septembre 2020

.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 } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s94C6321B { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s504C9AF1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.15pt } .sD7AA71C8 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .s7647E535 { width:176.11pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .sB136BB97 { width:166.44pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s6A03BAFC { width:19.24%; 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 } .s64FBB55 { width:24.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s22723641 { width:17.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .sDFDFB747 { width:19.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE56A8EFE { width:18.72%; 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 } .sB5B1C99F { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s3A010229 { width:19.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD4AB240F { width:24.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s80CAFDAB { width:17.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8A73A3A5 { width:19.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF615212F { width:18.72%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sB343B0AA { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 3722/11 Mehmet ARSLAN against Turkey (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29   September 2020 as a Committee composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen, President,   Darian Pavli,   Peeter Roosma, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30   November 2010, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant was represented by Mr M. Biçen, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention regarding Malatya Assize Court’s decision of 23 July 2010 pronouncing him guilty of an offence for which he had not been found guilty were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”). THE LAW 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 application in accordance with Article   37 of the Convention The declaration provided as follows: “The Government of Turkey acknowledges that in the present case there has been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 6 of the Convention, because the decision of 3rd Chamber of the Malatya Assize Court did not meet the Convention standards. The Government further emphasises that Article 311 § 1 (f) of the Code on Criminal Procedure, as amended by Law no. 7145 of 31 July 2018, now requires reopening of criminal proceedings in cases where the European Court of Human Rights decides to strike an application out of its list of cases following a friendly settlement or a unilateral declaration. The Government considers that the aforementioned remedy is capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. The Government thus offer to pay the applicant Mehmet Arslan, EUR 900 (nine hundred euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant with a view to resolving the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum will be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision 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 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.” By a letter of 22 April 2020 the applicant’s representative indicated that the applicant was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration as the applicant’s damages were irreparable and that the amount offered by the Government was too low. The Court observes that Article   37 §   1   (c) enables it 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 application”. Thus, it may strike out applications 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 case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no.   26307/95, §§   75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI). The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the presumption of innocence in proceedings that were closely connected or had a link with criminal proceedings which have ended with a result other than a conviction (see, for example, Kemal Coşkun v. Turkey , no. 45028/07, §§ 51-57, 28 March 2017, and Seven v. Turkey , no.   60392/08, § 50, 23 January 2018). Noting the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, the fact that the applicant can ask for re-opening of the proceedings, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37 §   1   (c)). In the light of the above considerations, 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 application (Article   37   §   1 in fine ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 §   2 of the Convention ( Josipović v.   Serbia (dec.), no.   18369/07, 4   March 2008). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the arrangements for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   37 §   1   (c) of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 22 October 2020.   Liv Tigerstedt   Arnfinn Bårdsen   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (Presumption of innocence) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name   Date of birth   Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of applicant’s comments Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (euros) [1] 3722/11   30/11/2010 Mehmet ARSLAN   01/01/1964   09/01/2020 26/05/2020 900   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.