SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 55238/12 Hüseyin TUNCEL against Turkey

( s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25 June 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Ivana Jelić , President, Arnfinn Bårdsen , Darian Pavli, judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 June 2012,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,

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 H. Tekin Güner , a lawyer practising in Istanbul.

The applicant ’ s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the domestic authorities ’ failure to discharge their positive obligation to protect his right to property, on account of the damage caused to his tractor during a river flood and the domestic court ’ s dismissal of his compensation claim was communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) .

THE LAW

On 10 January 2020 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by this complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provides as follows:

“The Government consider that the proceedings concerning the applicant ’ s allegations did not meet the standards enshrined in Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

I therefore declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay to the applicant, EUR 3,000 euros (three thousand euros) in total, to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable. This sum would also cover the applicant ’ s any and all claims for pecuniary, non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses in domestic law in respect of the present case.

This sum, which is considered to be appropriate in the light of the jurisprudence of the Court, 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 § l 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 before the national authorities as well as the European Court of Human Rights.”

By a letter dated 23 January 2020, the applicant was informed of the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declaration and was invited to submit any comments he wished to make. The Court has not received any response from the applicant.

The Court observes that Article 37 § 1 (c) enables it 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”.

Thus, it may strike out applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued (see, in particular, the Tahsin Acar v. Turkey judgment (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court has established clear and extensive case-law concerning complaints relating to the positive obligations of the State to take the measures necessary to protect the right to property (see, for example, Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no. 48939/99, §§ 134-136, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII, and Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia , nos. 17423/05 and 5 others, §§ 215-216, 28 February 2012).

Noting 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)).

In the light of the above considerations, 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 ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application may 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).

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 and of the arrangements 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 16 July 2020 .

Liv Tigerstedt Ivana Jelić Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ( Interference with the right to property )

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant ’ s name

Date of birth

Date of receipt of

Government ’ s declaration

Date of receipt of

applicant ’ s comments, if any

Amount awarded for pecuniary and

non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses

per applicant

(in euros) [1]

55238/12

13/06/2012

Hüseyin TUNCEL

25/03/1945

10/01/2020

/

3,000

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