SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 43346/20 Zehra DOÄžAN against Turkey

(see appended table)

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24 February 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Jovan Ilievski, President, Gilberto Felici, Diana Sârcu, judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 September 2020,

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. She was represented by Mr O. Olgun, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention concerning the alleged breach of her right to presumption of innocence on account of the reasoning of the Tarsus Enforcement Court was 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 a violation of Article 6 § 2. 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. In reply, the applicant submitted that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration. In particular, she contended that the amount of compensation provided for in the Government’s unilateral declaration was low. She further submitted that the delivery of a judgment by the Court would be a more effective way of resolving the systematic violation of the Convention in Turkey.

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 breach of presumption of innocence on account of the reasoning and wording employed by domestic authorities, including courts (see, for example, Alkaşı v. Turkey , no. 21107/07, §§ 28-30, 18 October 2016 and Urat v. Turkey , nos. 53561/09 and 13952/11, § 58, 27 November 2018).

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)). As regards the applicant’s objections to the terms of the unilateral declaration, the Court has, in the absence of further details, no reasons to consider that the compensation offered by the Government constitutes inadequate or otherwise unreasonable redress for the violation of her Convention rights (see Ryabkin and Volokitin v. Russia (dec.), nos. 52166/08 and 8526/09, §§ 49‑50, 28 June 2016, and Igranov and Others v. Russia , nos. 42399/13 and 8 others, § 24, 20 March 2018, and, for a similar approach recently, Korol v. Russia (dec.) [Committee], no. 20129/18, 20 May 2021).

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 17 March 2022.

Viktoriya Maradudina Jovan Ilievski Acting Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention

Application no. Date of introduction

Applicant’s name

Year of birth

Representative’s name and location

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]

43346/20

17/09/2020

Zehra DOÄžAN

1989Olgun Olguner

Istanbul

25/10/2021

25/11/2021

1,350

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