SECOND SECTION
\nDECISION
\nApplication no. 27671\/12
\nM\u00fcrsel SARGUT
\nagainst Turkey<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 8\u00a0October 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Valeriu Gri\u0163co, President,
\nEgidijus K\u016bris,
\nDarian Pavli, judges,<\/p>\n
and Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 April 2012,<\/p>\n
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,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr M\u00fcrsel Sargut, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1983 and lives in Eski\u015fehir. He was represented before the Court by Mr\u00a0A. Do\u011fan and Ms F. Karaka\u015f Do\u011fan, lawyers practising in Istanbul.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that his dismissal from the University breached his rights.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The application had been communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant alleged that his right to education had been breached. He relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, on 13\u00a0May 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\u2019s 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\u2011established case-law of the Court (\u0130rfan Temel and others v.\u00a0Turkey, no.\u00a036458\/02, 3 March 2009). They further offered to pay him EUR\u00a01,600 (one thousand six hundred euros) to cover any pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses that may be chargeable to the applicant and requested the Court to strike out the application.<\/p>\n 7.\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\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 8.\u00a0\u00a0It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0To 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.\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 2007).<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u2019s right to education (see, \u0130rfan Temel and others, cited above).<\/p>\n 11.\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 37 \u00a7 1 (c)).<\/p>\n 12.\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\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 in fine).<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\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 14.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further takes note of the fact that on 25\u00a0July 2018 the Turkish Parliament adopted Law No. 7145, which entitles applicants to request the re-opening of domestic court proceedings following the Court\u2019s decision to strike out a case on the basis of a friendly settlement or unilateral declaration. Accordingly, Article 53 \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n 15.\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 37 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (Josipovi\u0107 v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369\/07, 4\u00a0March 2008).<\/p>\n In 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 Protocol No. 1 to 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 7 November 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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Valeriu Gri\u0163co
\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\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n