SECOND SECTION
\nDECISION
\nApplication no. 140\/13
\nElif MAYDA and H\u00fcseyin MAYDA
\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,
\nand Hasan Bak\u0131rc\u0131, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 September 2012,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 31 May 2019 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants\u2019 reply to that declaration,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicants, Ms Elif Mayda and Mr H\u00fcseyin Mayda, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1955 and 1956 respectively and live in Bursa. They were represented before the Court by Ms O. Ayd\u0131n, a lawyer practising in Ankara.<\/p>\n The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/p>\n The applicants had brought compensation proceedings against the State before the military administrative courts. The expert reports taken out in those proceedings assessed the amount of pecuniary damages suffered by the applicants to be higher than the amounts initially claimed by them. The applicants were unable to amend their claims in the light of the expert reports and were awarded only their initial claims.<\/p>\n The applicants\u2019 complaint under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention was given notice to the Government.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n The applicants complained about their inability to increase their initial claims in the light of the expert report produced in the proceedings before the military administrative courts. They relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 31 May 2019 the Government sent to the Court 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 applicants, Elif Mayda and H\u00fcseyin Mayda, jointly 1,000 EUR (one thousand euros) to cover any and all non\u2011pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.<\/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 taken by the Court to strike the case out of its 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 before the European Court of Human Rights.<\/p>\n The Government consider that the inability of the applicants to increase their pecuniary claims in the course of the proceedings on account of a procedural restriction at the material time, namely the prohibition of amendment in Law\u00a0no.\u00a01602, breached their right to a fair trial in the light of the well-established case\u2011law of the Court (Fatma Nur Erten and Adnan Erten v. Turkey, no. 14674\/11, 25\u00a0November 2014). The Government further emphasize that Article 53 \u00a7 1 (\u0131) of the Code of Administrative Procedure, as amended by Law no. 7145 of 3l July 2018, 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 The Government consider that the aforementioned remedy is capable of providing redress in respect of the applicants\u2019 complaints under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n The Government 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 By a letter of 30 July 2019, the applicants indicated that they were not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration.<\/p>\n The 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 It 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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.<\/p>\n 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.\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. 28953\/03, 18\u00a0September\u00a02007).<\/p>\n The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the disproportionate limitation to the right of access to a court on account of the procedural rule at the time which prevented litigants from amending their pecuniary claims in the course of administrative proceedings (see Fatma Nur Erten and Adnan Erten, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 29-33 and Tamer Tanr\u0131kulu v.\u00a0Turkey, no. 36488\/08, \u00a7 20, 29 November 2016).<\/p>\n Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government\u2019s declaration, in particular the adoption of Law no. 7145, according to which an applicant may request the re-opening of his case if the European Court of Human Rights decides to strike out an application following friendly settlement or a unilateral 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)). 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\u00a037\u00a0\u00a7 1 in fine).<\/p>\n 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\u00a037 \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 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 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 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 President<\/p>\n