SECOND SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 55099\/12
\nAlya O\u011eUR
\nagainst Turkey<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18\u00a0December 2018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ledi Bianku, President,
\nJon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro,
\nIvana Jeli\u0107, judges,<\/p>\n
and Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 June 2012,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 8 May 2018 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant\u2019s reply to that declaration,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Ms Alya O\u011fur, is a Turkish national, who was born in\u00a01955 and lives in \u015e\u0131rnak. She was represented before the Court by Mr\u00a0Can Kayhan, a lawyer practising in Ankara.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 February 2006 the applicant\u2019s husband was shot and killed in the course of a disturbance in his village. A number of village guards, who had fired their weapons during the incident, were indicted for the killing but were subsequently acquitted for lack of evidence to prove that they had shot the applicant\u2019s husband. After the end of the trial, on 2 July 2012 a continuous search order was issued by the prosecutor to keep the investigation open until expiry of the statute of limitations in order to find the perpetrator.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The application had been communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 2 of the Convention that her husband had been killed when fire was opened by the village guards, and alleged that the investigation into the killing had been ineffective.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 8 May 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 The declaration provided as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cI declare that the Government of the Republic of Turkey offer to pay to the applicant, Alya O\u011eUR, the amount of EUR 67,000 (sixty seven thousand euros) jointly, to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants, with a view to securing the settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights by unilateral declaration.<\/p>\n The Government regret the occurrence of the actions which have led to the bringing of the present application, in particular the death of the applicant\u2019s relative and the anguish caused to his family. The Government acknowledge that the investigation conducted into the death of the applicant\u2019s relative did not meet the standards enshrined in Article 2 of the Convention. The Government undertake to adopt all necessary measures to ensure that the effectiveness of the investigations into allegations of violation of the right to life \u2013 including the obligation to carry out effective investigations \u2013 is respected in the future.<\/p>\n These sums 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 taken by the Court to strike the case out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay these sums 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0By a letter of 15 August 2018, the applicant indicated that she was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that no effective or serious investigation had been conducted into the killing and that the amount proposed by the Government was far from adequate to compensate the damages she and her young children had suffered.<\/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 Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no.\u00a026307\/95, \u00a7\u00a7 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; see also Jeronovi\u010ds v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898\/10, 5 July 2016).<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has reiterated in a number of cases, including in cases brought against Turkey, the obligation under Article 2 of the Convention to carry out an effective investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force (see, inter alia, Mustafa Tun\u00e7 and Fecire Tun\u00e7v.\u00a0Turkey [GC], no. 24014\/05, \u00a7 169, 14 April 2015 and the case cited therein).<\/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)). The Court stresses that its decision is without prejudice to the possibility for the applicants to exercise any other available remedies in order to obtain redress (see Jeronovi\u010ds v. Latvia (dec.), no. 547\/02, \u00a7 54, 10 February 2009, and, mutatis mutandis, Jeronovi\u010ds, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 116-118). \u00a0In this connection the Court notes that the investigation into the killing of the applicant\u2019s husband is still open (see paragraph 3 above).<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the foregoing, 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\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 in\u00a0fine).<\/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 2 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 24 January 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ledi Bianku
\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