SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 41287/09 Bilal AKBAÅž against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Valeriu Griţco, President, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Georges Ravarani, judges, and Hasan Bak ırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 July 2009,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 27 July 2012 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. The applicant, Mr Bilal Akbaş, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1976 and is currently detained in Şanlıurfa Prison. He was represented before the Court by Mr E. Akbaş, a lawyer practising in Şanlıurfa.

2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

4. On 14 December 2003 the applicant was placed in detention on remand on suspicion of murder.

5. On 2 September 2009 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to twenty years ’ imprisonment.

6. According to the information obtained from the website of the Court of Cassation, the judgment of the first-instance court was upheld and became final on 30 December 2010.

7. The applicant ’ s complaints regarding the length of his pre-trial detention and the length of the criminal proceedings had been communicated to the Government.

COMPLAINTS

8. The applicant alleged under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been subjected to ill-treatment during his police custody.

9. Relying on Article 5 § 2 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that he had not been informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest.

10. The applicant further complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his pre-trial detention.

11. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant maintained that the criminal proceedings against him had lasted unreasonably long.

12. The applicant also complained about the first instance court ’ s evaluation of facts and evidence. In this respect, he maintained that the court had failed to take into account his defence submissions and had thus violated the principle of equality of arms. In this connection, he invoked Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.

13. The applicant further maintained under Article 7 of the Convention that the former penal code which had provided for a more lenient penalty had not been applied to his case.

14. Lastly, the applicant complained under Article 13 that the letters he had sent to the domestic authorities remained unanswered.

THE LAW

A. Regarding the length of pre-trial detention and the length of proceedings

15. The applicant complained about length of his pre-trial detention and the length of the criminal proceedings. He relied on Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention.

16. Following the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 27 July 2012 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

17. The declaration provided as follows:

“Je déclare que le Gouvernement de la République de Turquie offre de verser au requérant, M. Bilal Akbaş, la somme de 5 800 (cinq mille huit cents) euros, couvrant tout préjudices, plus tout montant pouvant être dû à titre de taxe et d ’ impôt par le requérant, somme qu ’ il considère comme appropriée à la lumière de la jurisprudence de la Cour.

Cette somme sera convertie en livres turques au taux applicable à la date du paiement, et exempte de toute taxe éventuellement applicable. Elle sera payée dans les trois mois suivant la date de la notification de la décision de la Cour rendue conformément à l ’ article 37 § 1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l ’ homme. A défaut de règlement dans ledit délai, le Gouvernement s ’ engage à verser, à compter de l ’ expiration de celui-ci et jusqu ’ au règlement effectif de la somme en question, un intérêt simple à un taux égal à celui de la facilité de prêt marginal de la Banque centrale européenne, augmenté de trois points de pourcentage. Ce versement vaudra règlement définitif de l ’ affaire.

Le Gouvernement considère que la détention provisoire de requérant et la procédure interne engagée par le requérant a connu une durée excessive au sens de la jurisprudence bien établie de la Cour ( Cahit Demirel c. Turkey , no. 18623/03 , 7 juillet 2009; Daneshpayeh c. Turquie , no. 21086/04, 16 juillet 2009). Il invite respectueusement la Cour à dire qu ’ il ne se justifie plus de poursuivre l ’ examen de la requête et à la rayer du rôle conformément à l ’ article 37 de la Convention.”

18. By a letter of 5 November 2012, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.

19. The Court re iterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular 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”.

20. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application 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.

21. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration carefully in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

22. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey , its practice concerning complaints about the violation one ’ s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and release pending trial within a reasonable time (see, for example, Daneshpayeh v. Turkey , no. 21086/04 , §§ 26-38, 16 July 2009; Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey , no. 24240/07 , § 48, 20 March 2012; Cahit Demirel v. Turkey , no. 18623/03 , §§ 21-28, 7 July 2009; and Solmaz v. Turkey , no. 27561/02, §§ 41-44, 16 January 2007 ).

23. Having regard to the nature of 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 under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

24. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, 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 this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

25. The Court considers that this amount should be converted into currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court ’ s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to settle within this period, simple interest shall be payable on the amount in question at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points.

26. Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

27. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it relates to the above complaints.

B. Regarding the remaining complaints

28. Regarding the applicant ’ s remaining complaints raised under Articles 3, 5, 6, 7 and 13 of the Convention, in the light of all the material in its possession, the Court finds that the applicant ’ s submissions do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. It follows that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike a part of the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 20 October 2016 .

Hasan Bakırcı Valeriu GriÅ£co              Deputy Registrar President