Last Updated on October 3, 2020 by LawEuro
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42779/13
İshak DOĞAN and others
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 24 June 2013,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 28 February 2019 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
2. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
3. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of proceedings.
4. The application had been communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
5. The applicants complained about length of civil proceedings which lasted for five years and one month. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention.
A. As to Mr İshak Doğan
6. Following the communication of the case, the Government informed the Court that the first applicant, namely Mr İshak Doğan had died on 5 October 2016.
7. By a letter of 12 July 2018 the Registry asked the applicants’ representative to indicate whether the heirs of the deceased applicant had wished to pursue the application. No reply was received on this matter.
8. The Court observes that the first applicant has died following the introduction of the application and no heirs or family members have expressed a wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in his stand.
9. In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application as regards the deceased applicant.
10. It therefore decides to strike the application in respect of Mr İshak Doğan.
B. As to the remaining applicants
11. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 28 February 2019 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.
12. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government of Turkey hereby wish to express by way of unilateral declaration its acknowledgment that the length of the proceedings in the present case did not meet the standards enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
I therefore declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay jointly to the applicants Mustafa Doğan, Abdurrahman Doğan, Akif Doğan, Cahit Doğan, Fevzi Doğan, Heybetullah Doğan and Mehmet Doğan, a total of 1,700 euros. This sum, which is considered appropriate in the light of the jurisprudence of the Court, covers any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and shall be paid in Turkish liras, free of any tax that may be applicable. This sum shall be payable within three months from the date of delivery of decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.
The Government respectfully invite the Court to declare that it is not justified anymore to continue the examination of the application and to strike the case out of its list in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.”
13. 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”.
14. 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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.
15. 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).
16. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII). 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)).
17. 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).
18. 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).
19. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it concerns the seven applicants, whose names are cited in the Government’s unilateral declaration.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration submitted in respect of seven of the applicants under Article 6 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application in so far as it is lodged by İshak Doğan 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
_____________
Appendix
| No. | Applicant’s Name | Birth date | Nationality | Place of residence |
| 1 | İshak DOĞAN | 01/01/1942
(died on 5 October 2016) |
Turkish | Kağızman |
| 2 | Abdurrahman DOĞAN | 01/07/1972 | Turkish | Kağızman |
| 3 | Akif DOĞAN | 01/01/1959 | Turkish | Kağızman |
| 4 | Cahit DOĞAN | 01/01/1963 | Turkish | Kağızman |
| 5 | Fevzi DOĞAN | 01/01/1946 | Turkish | Kağızman |
| 6 | Heybetullah DOĞAN | 02/05/1965 | Turkish | Kağızman |
| 7 | Mehmet DOĞAN | Turkish | Kağızman | |
| 8 | Mustafa DOĞAN | 07/02/1958 | Turkish | Kağızman |
Leave a Reply