CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 mars 2021

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF114237 { width:19.02pt; display:inline-block } .sEC241A8 { width:159.87pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .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 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 22202/12 Şenel NAZLAN and Others against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16   March 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Valeriu Griţco, President,   Branko Lubarda,   Pauliine Koskelo, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 March 2012, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 24 December 2020 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.     A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicants complained under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention about the alleged ineffectiveness of the domestic investigation further to their complaint lodged against civil third parties for causing bodily harm. 4.     The application was communicated to the Government. 5.     After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, by letter dated 24 December 2020 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. “The Government admit that the investigation conducted into the applicants’ complaints did not meet the standards of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. The Government emphasize 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 consider that the aforementioned remedy is capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Article 2 of the Convention. The Government thus offer to pay the applicants; - EUR 4,000 (four thousand euros) to each of the first and third applicants, namely to Şenel Nazlan and Murat Nazlan, to cover any non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable; - EUR 8,000 (eight thousand euros) to the second applicant, namely to Dursun Özdemir, to cover any non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable; and - EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros) as a whole to all applicants to cover any and all costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants with a view to resolving the abovementioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. These sums 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. This payment will constitute the final resolution of the case before the European Court of Human Rights.” 6.     On 29 January 2021, the Court received a letter from the applicants informing the Court that they had agreed to the terms of the Government’s declaration. THE LAW 7.     The Court finds that following the applicants’ express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties. 8.     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 application. 9.     Moreover, the Court notes that the relevant parts of the Code of Criminal Procedure were amended in July 2018. According to the amendment, applicants in Turkey now have the opportunity to ask the relevant prosecutors to reopen the investigations not only in cases in which the Court has found a violation of the Convention on account of a failure to carry out an effective investigation, but also if their applications have been struck out by the Court on the basis of friendly settlements or on the basis of unilateral declarations submitted by the Government.   In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases pursuant to Article 39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 8 April 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Hasan Bakırcı   Valeriu Griţco   Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix           No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. Şenel Nazlan 1966 Turkish Gaziantep 2. Dursun Özdemir 1961 Turkish Gaziantep 3. Murat Nazlan 1989 Turkish Gaziantep