SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 43101/09 Yılmaz SÖYLEMEZ against Turkey

(s ee appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 May 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 3 August 2009,

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 Mr H. Güneş, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.

The applicant ’ s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the alleged violation of the right to a reasoned judgment and respect for adversarial proceedings were communicated to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) .

THE LAW

The Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention .

The Government acknowledged that the impugned proceedings had not met the guarantees enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention . 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 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 was sent the terms of the Government ’ s unilateral declaration on 23 January 2020. The Court received a response from the applicant refusing the terms of the declaration as he found the amount offered by the Government insufficient given his complaints.

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, Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75 ‑ 77, ECHR 2003-VI).

The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to present one ’ s case effectively before the court and to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom , no. 68416/01, §§ 59-60, ECHR 2005-II). The Court has also established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about a violation of Article 6 as regards the lack of sufficient reasoning and breach of the adversarial principle and equality of arms in the proceedings before the Court of Cassation (see, for example, Deryan v. Turkey , no. 41721/04, §§ 37-42, 21 July 2015 , and Özgür Keskin v. Turkey , no. 12305/09 , §§ 32-37, 17 October 2017).

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 ( 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 18 June 2020 .

Liv Tigerstedt Ivana Jelić Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention

( Fair hearing )

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

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

(in euros) [1]

43101/09

03/08/2009

Yılmaz SÖYLEMEZ

02/03/1938

14/01/2020

24/02/2020

3,500

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