Search
document

BULUT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 54849/10, 58095/10, 59512/10, 74298/10, 25752/11, 25764/11, 34192/11, 42339/11, 52959/11, 52980/11, ... • ECHR ID: 001-165552

Document date: June 28, 2016

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

BULUT AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

Doc ref: 54849/10, 58095/10, 59512/10, 74298/10, 25752/11, 25764/11, 34192/11, 42339/11, 52959/11, 52980/11, ... • ECHR ID: 001-165552

Document date: June 28, 2016

Cited paragraphs only

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 54849/10 CoÅŸkun BULUT against Turkey and 22 other applications (see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 28 June 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Ksenija Turković, President, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, Georges Ravarani, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on different dates,

Having regard to the declarations submitted by the respondent Government on 18 February 2016 requesting the Court to strike the applications out of the list of cases and the applicants ’ reply to these declarations,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. They were all represented by Mr S. Çalkan , a lawyer practicing in Ankara.

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

3. The applicants complained under Article 5 of the Convention about the room confinement imposed on them by their military superiors as a disciplinary measure.

4. The applications had been communicated to the Government .

THE LAW

5. Having regard to the fact that the present applications concern the same facts and complaints and raise identical issues under the Convention, the Court decides to join them pursuant to Rule 42 § 1 of the rules of Court.

6. The applicants complained about the room confinement imposed on them by their military superiors as a disciplinary measure. They relied on Article 5 of the Convention.

7. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 18 February 2016, the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make unilateral declarations with a view to resolving the issue raised by the applicants. They further requested the Court to strike out the applications in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

8. The declarations provided all as follows:

“« The Government hereby wishes to express by the way of unilateral declaration that the applicant ’ s detention by order of his high-ranking commander does not meet the standards enshrined in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.

Consequently, the Government is prepared to pay the applicant 800 (eight hundred) Euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. This sum will be converted into the national currency at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be free of any further taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertakes 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 Government therefore invites the Court to strike the present case out of the list of cases. They suggest that the present declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court ’ s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 §1 (c) of the Convention. »”

9. In their letter of 11 April 2016 the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declarations.

10. 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 applications”.

11. It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an applications under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicants wish the examination of their case to be continued.

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

13. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declarations, as well as the amount of compensation proposed, in the particular circumstances of the cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the applications (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

14. 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 the applications (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

15. 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).

16. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case s out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

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

Decides to join the applications;

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

Done in English and notified in writing on 21 July 2016 .

Hasan Bakırcı Ksenija Turković Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application No

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

54849/10

06/08/2010

CoÅŸkun BULUT

01/01/1970

Kayseri

58095/10

03/09/2010

Zafer ÇONGAOĞLU

01/01/1982

Ankara

59512/10

06/08/2010

Fahri BARAN

12/08/1970

Yozgat

74298/10

24/11/2010

Bülent DÜNDAR

25/01/1981

Isparta

25752/11

25/02/2011

Cuma ÖZDEMİR

18/02/1983

Denizli

25764/11

24/02/2011

Kerim YILMAZ

14/05/1973

Ankara

34192/11

15/04/2011

Tayfun Ä°LKAR

01/01/1980

Lefke

42339/11

30/05/2011

Yasin BOLAT

23/04/1988

Denizli

52959/11

30/05/2011

Fatih DOÄžANGÃœN

10/01/1975

Ankara

52980/11

30/05/2011

Ekrem DURAN

10/01/1984

Aksaray

52991/11

30/05/2011

Mehmet HORUZ

07/03/1984

Ä°stanbul

52993/11

30/05/2011

Murat Veysel KANPAK

28/12/1980

Denizli

55045/11

09/08/2011

Halil GÃœRBÃœZ

30/04/1988

Adiyaman

55089/11

09/08/2011

Hüseyin YILDIZ

01/01/1971

Adana

55092/11

08/08/2011

Ertan ÖZSEMERCİ

01/01/1977

Tunceli

55137/11

09/08/2011

Emrah ÇUHADAR

03/04/1980

Ankara

58517/11

06/09/2011

Mikail KIZILTAÅž

18/04/1973

Kırıkkale

58545/11

20/06/2011

Hasan KILIÇ

25/03/1976

Ankara

58825/11

19/05/2011

Yaşar KAÇAR

26/06/1964

Ä°zmir

58843/11

25/08/2011

Ahmet KURT

23/04/1983

UÅŸak

58847/11

25/08/2011

Kazim Ä°YÄ°LER

01/01/1968

Ä°stanbul

61003/11

09/08/2011

Mustafa BAÅžARAN

23/05/1990

Kahramanmara ÅŸ

61199/11

27/08/2011

Kadir ATUK

10/10/1987

Ordu

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant