THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 9269/02 
by Şeyhmus TANRIKULU 
against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B.M. Zupančič, President
 Mr J. Hedigan
 Mr R. Türmen
 Mr C. Bîrsan
 Mr V. Zagrebelsky
 Mrs A. Gyulumyan, 
 Mr David Thór Björgvinsson, judges
and Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 January 2002,

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

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Şeyhmus Tanrıkulu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Diyarbakır. He is represented before the Court by Mr S. Korkmaz and Mr A. Süer, lawyers practising in Diyarbakır.

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

Prior to the incidents giving rise to the present application, the police officers from the Anti-Terrorism Department of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate carried out operations with a view to apprehending militants of the Hizbullah illegal organisation. On the basis of the information obtained by some of the detainees, the police officers suspected the applicant of being a Hizbullah militant.

On 29 September 2001, at around 4 p.m., in the presence of a detainee who was taken for on-site inspection, the police officers from the Prevention of Terrorism Department of the Diyarbakır Security Directorate carried out an operation into the applicant’s home where they seized tools to produce identity cards. The applicant was not at home. The police officers drafted an arrest report which was signed by the detainee who guided the police to that address, the applicant, his wife and the police officers. According to this report the applicant had arrived to the neighbourhood around 1.45 a.m. and he had been arrested following a chase.

On 9 October 2001 the applicant was brought before the Public Prosecutor and then before a non-presiding judge at the Diyarbakır State Security Court, where he refused all the allegations against him. The court ordered his detention on remand.

On 12 October 2001 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant under Article 5 of Law on Prevention of Terrorism and Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention that there was no reasonable suspicion for his arrest and detention.

Under Article 5 § 2 of the Convention he alleged that he was not informed promptly of the reasons for his arrest.

Furthermore he complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that he was held in police custody for an excessive period of time.

He argued under Article 5 §§ 4 and 5 of the Convention that Turkish law does not afford any effective remedy by which the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention could be decided.

THE LAW

On 20 April 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Turkey offer to pay ex gratia to the applicant an all-inclusive amount of EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned application pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which also covers legal expenses connected with the case, shall be free of any tax that may be applicable and be paid in euros, to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of payment, to a bank account named by the applicant and/or his duly authorised representative. It shall be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision delivered by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This payment will constitute the final settlement of the case. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three month period, the Government undertake to pay, until settlement, simple interest on the amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.”

On 22 February 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s representative:

“I note that the Government of Turkey are prepared to pay ex gratia to the applicant an all-inclusive amount of EUR 4,500 (four thousand five thousand euros) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned application pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as legal costs and expenses connected with the case, shall be paid in euros, to be converted into Turkish liras at the rate applicable at the date of payment, to a bank account named by me. It shall be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision delivered 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, until settlement, simple interest on the 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 of this application. I declare that this constitutes a final settlement of the case.

This declaration is made in the context of a friendly settlement which the Government and I have reached.”

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). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Vincent Berger Boštjan M. Zupančič 
 Registrar President

ŞEYHMUS TANRIKULU v. TURKEY DECISION


ŞEYHMUS TANRIKULU v. TURKEY DECISION