[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Ali CIMEN and Mehmet METE v Turkey - 19539/02 [2009] ECHR 1217 (7 July 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/1217.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 1217

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

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 19539/02
by Ali ÇİMEN and Mehmet METE
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 July 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Işıl Karakaş, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 January 2002,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Mr Ali Cimen and Mr Mehmet Mete, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1969 and 1975 respectively. The first applicant is currently serving his prison sentence in Urla Prison and the second applicant resides in İzmir. They were represented before the Court by Mr A. Terece, a lawyer practising in İzmir. The Turkish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent.

In 2001 the applicants were taken into police custody and they were subsequently placed in detention on remand. During their police custody, both applicants were interrogated in the absence of a lawyer. They were subsequently tried before the Izmir State Security Court. During the proceedings, the second applicant was released pending trial. On 19 September 2002 the applicants were convicted as charged solely on the basis of their statements taken in the absence of a lawyer whilst in police custody. On 4 March 2003 the Court of Cassation rejected their appeal.

The applicants made various complaints to the Court under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, including a complaint about the absence of early legal advice.

THE LAW

The Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay ex gratia EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to Mr Ali Çimen and EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) to Mr Mehmet Mete 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 will be 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 the applicants:

“I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay ex gratia EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros) to Mr Ali Çimen and EUR 1,500 (one thousand five hundred euros) to Mr Mehmet Mete 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 will be 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.

Having consulted my clients, I would inform you that they accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Turkey in respect of the facts giving rise to these applications. They 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). Nevertheless, the Court considers that, taking into account the requirements of the proper administration of justice, the State should ensure that all necessary steps are taken to allow the re-trial of the applicants in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, should the applicants so request (see, Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 72, 27 November 2008).

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.

Françoise Elens-Passos Françoise Tulkens
Deputy Registrar President