SECOND SECTION
\nDECISION
\nApplication no. 42779\/13
\n\u0130shak DO\u011eAN and others
\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 24 June 2013,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 28 February 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\u00a0A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of proceedings.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0The application had been communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicants complained about length of civil proceedings which lasted for five years and one month. They relied on Article 6 of the Convention.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As to Mr \u0130shak Do\u011fan<\/strong><\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0Following the communication of the case, the Government informed the Court that the first applicant, namely Mr \u0130shak Do\u011fan had died on 5\u00a0October 2016.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0By a letter of 12 July 2018 the Registry asked the applicants\u2019 representative to indicate whether the heirs of the deceased applicant had wished to pursue the application.\u00a0No reply was received on this matter.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that the first applicant has died following the introduction of the application and no heirs or family members have expressed a wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in his stand.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the foregoing, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application as regards the deceased applicant.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0It therefore decides to strike the application in respect of Mr \u0130shak Do\u011fan.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As to the remaining applicants<\/strong><\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 28 February 2019 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 12.\u00a0\u00a0The declaration provided as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cThe Government of Turkey hereby wish to express by way of unilateral declaration its acknowledgment that the length of the proceedings in the present case did not meet the standards enshrined in Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention.<\/p>\n I therefore declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay jointly to the applicants Mustafa Do\u011fan, Abdurrahman Do\u011fan, Akif Do\u011fan, Cahit Do\u011fan, Fevzi Do\u011fan, Heybetullah Do\u011fan and Mehmet Do\u011fan, a total of 1,700 euros. This sum, which is considered appropriate in the light of the jurisprudence of the Court, covers any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, and shall be paid in Turkish liras, free of any tax that may be applicable. This sum shall be payable within three months from the date of delivery of decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 \u00a7 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.<\/p>\n The Government respectfully invite the Court to declare that it is not justified anymore to continue the examination of the application and to strike the case out of its list in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.\u201d<\/p>\n 13.\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 14.\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 applicants wish the examination of the case to be continued.<\/p>\n 15.\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\u00a0June\u00a02007; and Sulwi\u0144ska v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a028953\/03, 18\u00a0September\u00a02007).<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Turkey, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of one\u2019s right to a hearing within a reasonable time (see, for example, Frydlender v.\u00a0France [GC], no.\u00a030979\/96, \u00a7 43, ECHR 2000-VII). Having 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 17.\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 18.\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 19.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in so far as it concerns the seven applicants, whose names are cited in the Government\u2019s unilateral declaration.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government\u2019s declaration submitted in respect of seven of the applicants 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 in so far as it is lodged by \u0130shak Do\u011fan 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 _____________<\/p>\n Appendix<\/strong><\/p>\n (died on 5 October 2016)<\/td>\n
\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\n\n
\n No.<\/strong><\/td>\n Applicant\u2019s Name<\/strong><\/td>\n Birth date<\/strong><\/td>\n Nationality<\/strong><\/td>\n Place of residence<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n \n 1<\/td>\n \u0130shak DO\u011eAN<\/td>\n 01\/01\/1942<\/p>\n Turkish<\/td>\n Ka\u011f\u0131zman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 2<\/td>\n Abdurrahman DO\u011eAN<\/td>\n 01\/07\/1972<\/td>\n Turkish<\/td>\n Ka\u011f\u0131zman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 3<\/td>\n Akif DO\u011eAN<\/td>\n 01\/01\/1959<\/td>\n Turkish<\/td>\n Ka\u011f\u0131zman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 4<\/td>\n Cahit DO\u011eAN<\/td>\n 01\/01\/1963<\/td>\n Turkish<\/td>\n Ka\u011f\u0131zman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 5<\/td>\n Fevzi DO\u011eAN<\/td>\n 01\/01\/1946<\/td>\n Turkish<\/td>\n Ka\u011f\u0131zman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 6<\/td>\n Heybetullah DO\u011eAN<\/td>\n 02\/05\/1965<\/td>\n Turkish<\/td>\n Ka\u011f\u0131zman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 7<\/td>\n Mehmet DO\u011eAN<\/td>\n <\/td>\n Turkish<\/td>\n Ka\u011f\u0131zman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n 8<\/td>\n Mustafa DO\u011eAN<\/td>\n 07\/02\/1958<\/td>\n Turkish<\/td>\n Ka\u011f\u0131zman<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n