Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.45175/12
İsmail ÇİÇEK
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5 February 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Julia Laffranque, President,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
ArnfinnBårdsen, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 May 2012,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 17 October 2018 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr İsmail Çiçek, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1985 and lives in Siirt. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Ertek, a lawyer practising in Siirt.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. When the applicant was diagnosed withschizophrenia during his military service, he was discharged from the army. He then initiated compensation proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, complaining about the treatment he had received in the military hospital. On 5 October 2011 the Supreme Military Administrative Court rejected the request for legal aid, merely stating that the conditions laid down in Article 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 56 of the Code on Supreme Military Administrative Court were not fulfilled.On 15 February 2012 the Supreme Military Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings as the court fees had not been paid (decision no. 2011/1227E, 2012/150K).
4. The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
5. The applicant complained that he had been denied access to a court on account of the domestic courts’ refusal to grant him legal aid to pay the court fees. He relied on Article 6 of the Convention.
6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 17 October 2018 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
7. The declaration provided as follows:
“I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay the applicant 2,500 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant with a view to resolving the above-mentioned cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum 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 of the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention of 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 them, 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.
The Government consider that the inability of the applicant to access to a court on account of the Van Administrative Court’s refusal to grant them legal aid to pay the court fees, breached their right to a fair trial in the light of the well-established case-law of the Court (IlbeyiKemaloğlu and MeriyeKemaloğlu v. Turkey, no. 19986/06, 10 April 2012). The Government further emphasises that Article 53 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, as amended by Law no. 7145 of 31 July 2018, now requires the reopening of the administrative court proceedings in cases where the European Court of Human Rights decides to strike an application out of its list of cases following a friendly settlement or a unilateral declaration. The Government consider that the aforementioned remedy is capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.
The Government respectfully invite the Court to declare that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application and to strike it out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.”
8. The Court reiterates 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”.
9. 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.
10. To this end, the Court has examined the declarationin the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the TahsinAcar judgment (TahsinAcar 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).
11. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the refusal of the authorities to grant legal aid (see, for example, IlbeyiKemaloğlu and MeriyeKemaloğlu v. Turkey, no. 19986/06, 10 April 2012).
12. 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 (Article 37 § 1 (c)).
13. 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 application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
14. The Court considers that this amount should be converted into Turkish liras 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.
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 out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 6 of the Convention and of the modalities 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 7 March 2019.
Hasan Bakırcı Julia Laffranque
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply