SECOND SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no.\u00a015063\/10
\nNihat YOLCU
\nagainst Turkey<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 19\u00a0March 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Julia Laffranque, President,
\nSt\u00e9phanieMourou-Vikstr\u00f6m,
\nArnfinnB\u00e5rdsen, judges,<\/p>\n
and Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4\u00a0February 2010,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 21 November 2018 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, MrNihatYolcu, is a Turkish national, who was born in\u00a01966 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Ms\u00a0Z.\u00a0Dural\u0131, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date in 2007 the applicant brought compensation proceedings against a third party. On 18 November 2008 the \u015ei\u015fli Civil Court of General Jurisdiction ruled in his favour. However, on 15\u00a0July 2009 it refused the applicant\u2019s request to receive a copy of the judgment to start enforcement proceedings, as neither party had paid the required fees.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The application had been communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the non-execution of the judgment that had been delivered in his favour on account of the defendant party\u2019s failure to pay the court fees had violated his right of access to court. He relied on Article\u00a06 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0By a letter of 21 November 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\u00a037 of the Convention.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The declaration provided as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cI declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay the applicant EUR\u00a01,000 (one\u00a0thousand 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 case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n This sum will be converted into the currency of the respondent state at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the case out of \u0130ts list of cases. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, 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.<\/p>\n The Government acknowledge that holding the applicant responsible for the payment of charges to receive a copy of the final judgment imposed an excessive burden and restricted its right of access to a court, guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention. In this connection, the Government point out that following the decision of the Constitutional Court dated 14 January 2010, Section 28 of the Law on Fees has been amended and the sentence now reads “Failure to pay the court fees for the judgment and writ of execution would not prevent the execution of the judgment, its Service on the parties or the parties\u2019 right to have recourse to appeal proceedings.”<\/p>\n The Government further undertake to remove any obstacles to enforcement by taking all necessary measures to ensure that the writ of execution can be issued, it being understood that the applicant may recover its debt.\u201d<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that Article\u00a037 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\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:<\/p>\n \u201cfor any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application\u201d.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(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.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0To this end, the Court has examined the declarationin the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the TahsinAcar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7\u00a7 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a011602\/02, 26\u00a0June\u00a02007; and Sulwi\u0144ska v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a028953\/03, 18\u00a0September\u00a02007).<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the restriction of the right of access to a court to such an extent as to impair the very essence of that right (\u00dclger v. Turkey, no. 25321\/02, 26\u00a0June 2007; Osman Y\u0131lmaz v. Turkey, no. 18896\/05, 8 December 2009; and \u00c7ak\u0131r and Others v. Turkey, no. 25747\/09, 4 June 2013).<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government\u2019s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed \u2013 which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases \u2013 the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c)).<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0Moreover, 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 \u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, 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\u00a037 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4\u00a0March 2008).<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declaration under Article 6 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;<\/p>\n Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 11\u00a0April 2019.<\/p>\n Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Julia Laffranque
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n