AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
by Tuncer EROL
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 October 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 October 2004,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having regard to the partial decision of 24 March 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Tuncer Erol, is a Turkish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Istanbul. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Filorinalı and Ms F. Köstak, lawyers practising in İstanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.
On 24 March 2009 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaints concerning his right to be released pending trial, his right to compensation for unlawful detention and his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time under Article 5 §§ 3 and 5 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention .
On 4 June 2009 and 27 July 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 9,300 euros to cover any 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 payment would constitute the final resolution of the case.
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).
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 remainder of the application out of its list of cases.
Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens