CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 juin 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 } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .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 } .sA2E6D872 { width:158.2pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s2753FA3F { width:163.53pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 34103/12 Hadice ATASEVER and Sadiye ATASEVER against Turkey   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8   June 2021 as a Committee composed of:   Carlo Ranzoni, President,   Egidijus Kūris,   Pauliine Koskelo, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 April 2012, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 February 2021 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 applicants, Ms Hadice Atasever and Ms Sadiye Atasever, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1940 and 1982 respectively and live in Batman. They were represented before the Court by Ms M. Nergiz a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır. 2.     The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. 3.     The applicants complained under Articles 2 and 14 of the Convention that the domestic authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation following their relative’s suicide. 4.     The application had been communicated to the Government . THE LAW 5.     The applicants complained about the alleged ineffectiveness of the domestic investigation following their relative’s death. They relied on Articles   2 and 14 of the Convention. 6.     After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 16 February 2021 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. 7.     The declaration provided as follows: “The Government regret the occurrence of individual cases of death caused by failures to protect the right to life, as in the circumstances of the present case, notwithstanding existing Turkish legislation and the resolve of the Government to prevent such failures. They further reiterate their undertaking to issue appropriate instructions and adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the right to life is respected in the future. I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay jointly to the applicants Hadice Atasever and Sadiye Atasever, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, EUR   18,000 (eighteen thousand euros) to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants. 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 taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on them, 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 before the European Court of Human Rights.” 8.     By a letter of 16 April 2021, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. 9.     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 application”. 10.     It 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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued. 11.     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; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no.   11602/02, 26   June   2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18   September   2007). 12.     The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out effective investigations (see Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no.   24014/05, §   169, 14 April 2015).   13.     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 in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article   37   §   1   (c)). 14.     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 application (Article   37 § 1 in fine ). 15.     In this connection, the Court notes that the relevant sections 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. 16.     Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 § 2 of the Convention (see Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4   March 2008). 17.     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 under Article 2 of the Convention and of the modalities 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 1 July 2021.   {signature_p_2}   Hasan Bakırcı   Carlo Ranzoni   Deputy Registrar   President