by Mehmet GÜNGÖRMEZ
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 September 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 July 2004,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having regard to the partial decision of 18 November 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Mehmet Güngörmez, is a Turkish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mrs E. Çıtak, a lawyer practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
On 18 November 2008 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings against him which have already lasted over 22 years before two levels of jurisdiction.
On 2 January and 18 May 2009 the Court received friendly settlement declarations signed by the parties by which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to this application against an undertaking by the Government to pay him 19,700 euros to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, which would be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. This sum would be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 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 undertook 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 Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the State should still ensure that all necessary steps are taken to allow the trial to be concluded as speedily as possible, taking into account the requirements of the proper administration of justice.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens