Source: https://sip.lex.pl/orzeczenia-i-pisma-urzedowe/orzeczenia-sadow/9475-10-akkas-and-cogaltay-v-turcja-decyzja-522764169
Timestamp: 2020-01-24 23:12:06
Document Index: 673349271

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 9475', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 27', '§ 1', '§ 116']

9475/10, AKKAŞ AND ÇOĞALTAY v. TURCJA - Decyzja Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka
9475/10, AKKAŞ AND ÇOĞALTAY v. TURCJA - Decyzja...
9475/10
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0430DEC000947510
Application no. 9475/10
Hamza AKKAŞ and Reyhan ÇOĞALTAY
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 December 2009,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 6 September 2018 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicants' reply to that declaration,
1. The applicants, Mr Hamza Akkaş and Ms Reyhan Çoğaltay, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1981 and 1985 respectively. They were represented before the Court by Mr İ. Akmeşe, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
3. The applicants complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention about the unfairness of the criminal proceedings due to the systemic restriction imposed on their right of access to a lawyer during the pre-trial stage pursuant to Law no. 3842 and the subsequent use by the trial court of the statements taken in the absence of a lawyer.
The Government further emphasises that Article 311 § 1 (f) of the Code on Criminal Procedure, as amended by Law no. 7145 of 31 July 2018, now requires reopening of criminal proceedings in cases where the European Court of Human Rights decides to strike an application out of its list of cases following a friendly settlement or a unilateral declaration. The Government considers that the aforementioned remedy is capable of providing redress in respect of the applicants' complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.
The Government thus offer to pay each of the applicants, Hamza Akkaş and Reyhan Çoğaltay, EUR 500 (five hundred euros) to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants with a view to resolving the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
7. By a letter of 4 October 2018, the applicants' representative indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration finding the amount offered by the Government too low.
12. In the above-mentioned cases, the Court, without examining whether the systemic nature of the restriction on the applicants' right of access to a lawyer was, in itself, sufficient to find a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention, held that the use of the applicants' statements to the police by the trial court, without examining the question of their admissibility and the Court of Cassation's subsequent failure to remedy that shortcoming, had constituted a violation of that Article. Moreover, in all of the above cases, the Court considered that the finding of a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.
14. At this juncture, it is also important to note that the legal provisions from which the issue of systemic restriction on the right to a lawyer stemmed were repealed by Law no. 4928 of 15 July 2003 (see further, Salduz v. Turkey, §§ 27-31) and that a new Code of Criminal Procedure (Law no. 5271) entered into force on 1 June 2005, in which there is no provision for a systemic restriction on the right of access to a lawyer.
16. In that connection, it further points out that in accordance with the Court's case-law and practice, reopening the domestic proceedings is the most appropriate way to provide an effective solution to an alleged breach of Article 6 of the Convention, should the applicant so request. Thus, it considers that the aforementioned remedy is capable of providing redress in respect of the applicants' complaints under Article 6 of the Convention. Bearing in mind the Court's subsidiary role in protecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and its Protocols, the Court notes that it falls, in the first place, to the national authorities to redress any violation of the Convention.
17. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed - which is commensurate with the amounts awarded in similar cases - the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). That decision is without prejudice to the possibility for the applicants to exercise any other available remedies in order to obtain redress (see Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, §§ 116–118, 5 July 2016).