[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> SUalp CEKMECI and Others v Turkey - 520/02 [2008] ECHR 908 (2 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2008/908.html Cite as: [2008] ECHR 908

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

SECOND SECTION

FINAL DECISION

Application no. 520/02
by Süalp ÇEKMECİ and Others
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Antonella Mularoni,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 August 2001,

Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),

Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case.

Having regard to the partial decision of 20 November 2007,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Süalp Çekmeci, Mr İbrahim Varol, Mr Atilla Akgönül, Mr Hulusi Zeybel, Mr Turgay Nazari, Mrs Mine Yarıcı (Nazari), Mr Gürsel Koç and Mr Nejdet Coşkun, are Turkish nationals. They were represented before the Court by Mr F.A. Tamer and Ms Ş. Baybuğa, lawyers practising in Istanbul. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their agent.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On different dates in 1980 the applicants were taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. They were subsequently arrested and detained pending trial.

On various dates in 1980, 1981 and 1991, the applicants were released pending trial.

On 27 September 1984 the Istanbul Martial Law Court convicted the applicants under Articles 146, 168 and 169 of the former Criminal Code.

On 6 June 1990 the Military Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court.

On 6 April 1993 the Istanbul Martial Law Court convicted Süalp Çekmeci, Hulusi Zeybel, Atilla Akgönül, Turgay Nazari, Necdet Coşkun and Gürsel Koç under Article 146 of the former Criminal Code. The court acquitted Mine Yarıcı of the charges against her. As for İbrahim Varol the court held that the statutory time-limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Turkish Criminal Code had expired.

Following promulgation of the Law of 26 December 1994 abolishing the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation acquired jurisdiction over the case.

On 27 September 2000 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment in respect of Gürsel Koç on the ground that the statutory time-limit under Articles 102 and 104 of the Turkish Criminal Code had expired. The Court of Cassation upheld the judgment in respect of the other applicants.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that they did not receive a fair hearing since they were tried by a tribunal which lacked independence and impartiality. They further alleged that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in the same provision.

THE LAW

The Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay ex gratia EUR 10,000 (ten thousand) euros to each applicant (Mr Süalp Çekmeci, Mr İbrahim Varol, Mr Atilla Akgönül, Mr Hulusi Zeybel, Mr Turgay Nazari, Mrs Mine Yarıcı (Nazari), Mr Gürsel Koç and Mr Nejdet Coşkun), i.e. a total of EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros), with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into new Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment, and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will 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 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.”

The Court received the following declaration signed by one of the applicants’ representatives:

“I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay ex gratia EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros) to each applicant (Mr Süalp Çekmeci, Mr İbrahim Varol, Mr Atilla Akgönül, Mr Hulusi Zeybel, Mr Turgay Nazari, Mrs Mine Yarıcı (Nazari), Mr Gürsel Koç and Mr Nejdet Coşkun), i.e. a total of EUR 80,000 (eighty thousand euros), with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be converted into new Turkish liras at the rate applicable on the date of payment and free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will 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. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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
Registrar President