Last Updated on November 20, 2019 by LawEuro
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27671/12
Mürsel SARGUT
against Turkey
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8 October 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Valeriu Griţco, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Darian Pavli, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 April 2012,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 13 May 2019 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 Mürsel Sargut, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Eskişehir. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Doğan and Ms F. Karakaş Doğan, lawyers practising in Istanbul.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. The applicant complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his dismissal from the University breached his rights.
4. The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
5. The applicant alleged that his right to education had been breached. He relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
6. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, on 13 May 2019 the Government informed the Court that they proposed a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. In the declaration, the Government acknowledged that the applicant’s dismissal from the University and the refusal of the authorities to grant him compensation breached his right to education in the light of the well‑established case-law of the Court (İrfan Temel and others v. Turkey, no. 36458/02, 3 March 2009). They further offered to pay him EUR 1,600 (one thousand six hundred euros) to cover any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses that may be chargeable to the applicant and requested the Court to strike out the application.
7. 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”.
8. 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.
9. To this end, the Court has examined the declaration 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).
10. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention one’s right to education (see, İrfan Temel and others, cited above).
11. 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)).
12. 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).
13. 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.
14. The Court further takes note of the fact that on 25 July 2018 the Turkish Parliament adopted Law No. 7145, which entitles applicants to request the re-opening of domestic court proceedings following the Court’s decision to strike out a case on the basis of a friendly settlement or unilateral declaration. Accordingly, Article 53 § 1 (i) of the Code of Administrative Procedure, now provides for the reopening of 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.
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).
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 2 of Protocol No. 1 to 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 November 2019.
Hasan Bakırcı Valeriu Griţco
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply