SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 38714/04 by Selahattin HUMARTAÅž against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens , President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky , Danutė Jočienė , András Sajó , Nona Tsotsoria , Işıl Karakaş , judges, and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 July 2004,

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having regard to the partial decision of 18 November 2008 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Selahattin Humartaş , is a Turkish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Diyarbak ı r . He was represented before the Court by Mr K. Sidar, a lawyer practising in Diyarbakır . The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings brought against him had exceeded the reasonable time requirement (the criminal proceedings lasted eleven years and two months before two levels of jurisdiction).

THE LAW

The Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“ I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay ex gratia the sum of 7,700 (seven thousand seven hundred) euros (7,200 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 500 euros in respect of costs and expenses) to Mr Selahattin Humartaş with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency of the respondent government 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 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. ”

The Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“ I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay ex gratia the sum of 7,700 (seven thousand seven hundred) euros (7,200 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 500 euros in respect of costs and expenses) to Mr Selahattin Humartaş with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into the national currency of the respondent government 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 pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

Having consulted my client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares that this constitutes a final resolution of the case. ”

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 public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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.

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens Registrar President