SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 35034/10 Tahir ALTUN against Turkey

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17 June 2021 as a Committee composed of:

Branko Lubarda, President, Pauliine Koskelo, Marko Bošnjak, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 June 2010,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, and the applicant’s reply to this declaration,

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. Korkmaz , a lawyer practising in Batman.

The present application mainly concerns the property damage sustained by the applicant following a large underground explosion that took place in Batman on 3 May 2004. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, concerning his inability to access civil courts to claim damages on account of the allegedly erroneous application of the time-limit rules, and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, regarding the alleged violation of his property rights as a result of the explosion, were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”).

The Government submitted a declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised under Article 6. They acknowledged that the civil proceedings that are the subject-matter of the present application did not meet the standards enshrined in Article 6 of the Convention in respect of the right of access to court. They offered to pay the applicant the amount detailed in the appended table and invited the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. The amount would be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable on the date of payment and would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on it, from the 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 applicant informed the Court that he agreed to the terms of the declaration.

THE LAW

The Court finds that, following the applicant’s express agreement to the terms of the declaration made by the Government, the case should be treated as a friendly settlement between the parties.

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 the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify the continued examination of the application in the part covered by the declaration.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list as regards the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicant also complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention:

(i) that the State authorities had failed in their positive obligations to take the necessary precautions to avoid the explosion and the resulting damage to his property;

(ii) that the building restrictions imposed by the authorities in the aftermath of the explosion, which were still in force on account of the continuing leakage and risk of further explosions, had severely restricted the use of his property; and

(iii) that he had not been provided with redress for the damage he had sustained despite its recognition by experts.

As regards complaints (i) and (ii), the Court has examined these complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto (see Kurşun v. Turkey , no. 22677/10, §§ 125 and 129-33, 30 October 2018).

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

As for the applicant’s third complaint (iii) above – concerning his inability to obtain redress for the damage inflicted to his property because of the explosion –, the Court considers that having regard to the Government’s acknowledgment of a violation regarding the shortcomings in the civil proceedings at issue, there is no need to examine the admissibility or the merits of this particular complaint separately (see Kurşun , cited above, § 128).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention as regards the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;

Decides that there is no need to examine the admissibility or the merits of the complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the applicant’s inability to obtain compensation in respect of his pecuniary damage arising from the explosion;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 8 July 2021.

{signature_p_2}

Viktoriya Maradudina Branko Lubarda Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Date of receipt of Government’s declaration

Date of receipt of applicant’s acceptance

Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

(in euros) [1]

35034/10

01/06/2010

Tahir ALTUN

1965

24/11/2020

31/03/2021

9,000

[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.