SECOND SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 54190\/08
\nAhmet B\u00fclent \u00d6ZKAN
\nagainst Turkey<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6\u00a0November\u00a02018 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ledi Bianku, President,
\nJon Fridrik Kj\u00f8lbro,
\nIvana Jeli\u0107, judges,
\nand Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 November 2008,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 22 January 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, Mr Ahmet B\u00fclent\u00d6zkan, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1956 and lives in \u0130zmir. He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Ka\u015fka, a lawyer practising in \u0130zmir.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, a military officer, was declared unfit for military service and in 1998 he was discharged from the Army. Subsequently, the applicant initiated several sets of proceedings arguing that he had to benefit from service related disability pensions. His cases were dismissed, and the final decision was delivered on 16 October 2008 by the Supreme Military Administrative Court.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention about the non-communication of the Principle Public Prosecutor\u2019s written opinion to him in the proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court. He further stated that the outcome of the proceedings was unfair and that Articles 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention were breached.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The application had been communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the non-communication of the Principal Public Prosecutor\u2019swritten opinion submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court during the proceedings had violated his right to an adversarial and fair hearing. In this respect, he relied on Article 6 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention. He further stated that the outcome of the proceedings was unfair and argued that Articles 13, 17 and 18 of the Convention were breached.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 22 January 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 Turkey offer to pay the applicant Ahmet B\u00fclent\u00d6zkan, EUR 400 (four hundred euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant with a view to resolving the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n 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 by the Court pursuant to Article 37 \u00a7 1 of the European Convention on 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 it, from the 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 consider that the absence of communication to the applicant of the public prosecutor\u2019s observation submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court breached his right to a fair trial in the light of the well-established case-law of the Court (Meral v. Turkey, no.33446\/02, 27 November 2007). They 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.\u201d<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u00a037 \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 (TahsinAcar 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 June 2007; 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 non-communication of the public prosecutor\u2019s written opinion during proceedings to applicants (see, for example,Meral v. Turkey (no.\u00a033446\/02, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a032\u201139, 27 November 2007).<\/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\u00a0which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases\u00a0\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\u00a0The Court considers that this amount should be converted into currency of respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of payment, and paid within three months from the date of notification of the Court\u2019s decision issued in accordance with Article 37 \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0Furthermore, 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 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4 March 2008).<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list as regards the complaint concerning the non-communication of the Principal Public Prosecutor\u2019s written opinion during the proceedings before Supreme Military Administrative Court.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0Finally, the Court has examined the remaining complaints and considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, these complaints do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declaration under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;<\/p>\n Decides to strike the application in the part covered by the Government\u2019s unilateral declaration out of its list of cases in accordance with Article\u00a037 \u00a7\u00a01\u00a0(c) of the Convention;<\/p>\n Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 29 November 2018.<\/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