SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 59213/10 Ray i f DAMAR against Turkey

( s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 29 September 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Arnfinn BÃ¥rdsen , President, Darian Pavli, Peeter Roosma, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 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 Ms F. KarakaÅŸ DoÄŸan , a lawyer practising in Istanbul.

The applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on his right of access to a lawyer during the pre-trial stage and the use of the statements he had made in the absence of a lawyer. Relying on Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention, the applicant further alleged that he had been unable to examine or have examined the victim, E.B. Lastly, the applicant argued that the sentence imposed on him, namely a life sentence, had constituted inhuman treatment under Article 3 of the Convention given its disproportionate character and the fact that the judicial review of his sentence would only be possible after having served a term of thirty years ’ imprisonment.

The applicant ’ s above complaints were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”).

The Government submitted a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application.

The Government acknowledged the violation of the applicant ’ s rights under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention in the light of the Court ’ s well-established case-law. 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 these amounts within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertook to pay simple interest on them, 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 before the European Court of Human Rights.

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.

The Court would like to draw attention to the fact that on 25 July 2018 the Turkish Parliament has adopted Law no. 7145. Articles 4, 17, 18 and 19 of this new law provide for a right to request the re-opening of domestic court proceedings following the Court ’ s decision to strike out a case on the basis of a friendly settlement or unilateral declaration. In particular, according to the Court ’ s case-law and practice, the re-opening of the domestic proceedings is the most appropriate way to provide an effective solution to an alleged breach of Article 6 of the Convention. Thus, it is considered that the aforementioned remedy is capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant ’ s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. Bearing in mind the Court ’ s subsidiary role in protecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and its protocols, it is recalled that it falls in the first place to the national authorities to redress any violation of the Convention.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list as regards the complaints concerning the Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention .

The applicant also raised a complaint under Article 3 of the Convention relating to his life sentence.

The Court has examined this complaint and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matter complained of is within its competence, this complaint does not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto (see Tekin and Baysal v. Turkey ( dec. ), nos. 40192/10 and 8051/12 , §§ 25-28, 4 December 2018, and compare Bodein v. France , no. 40014/10, §§53-62, 13 November 2014 ).

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

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 complaints concerning the Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 ;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 22 October 2020 .

Liv Tigerstedt Arnfinn BÃ¥rdsen Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention

Application no.

Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date 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

per applicant

(in euros) [1]

59213/10

21/06/2010

Rayif DAMAR

23/08/1990

06/02/2020

29/07/2020

500[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant .