Date
Geographical Area
Europe
Countries
Turkey
Keywords
Jurisdiction
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Case Name
Öneryildiz v. Turkey
Case Reference
Application No. 48939/99
Name of Court
European Court of Human Rights
Key Facts
Application taken by two Turkish nationals against the Republic of Turkey under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).
The applicants contended that the national authorities were responsible for the deaths of their family and the destruction of property following a methane explosion at a municipal rubbish tip in Istanbul. Despite warnings from officials who investigated the dump in 1991 regarding the proximity of houses, an explosion occurred on 23rd April 1993 causing refuse to erupt from the mountain of waste, killing 39 people and engulfing some ten slum dwellings situated below, including one belonging to the applicant. The applicant alleged that the facts complained of gave rise to violations of the ECHR including Article 2 (right to life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 6(1) (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), and of Article 1, Protocol No.1 (protection of property).
The applicants contended that the national authorities were responsible for the deaths of their family and the destruction of property following a methane explosion at a municipal rubbish tip in Istanbul. Despite warnings from officials who investigated the dump in 1991 regarding the proximity of houses, an explosion occurred on 23rd April 1993 causing refuse to erupt from the mountain of waste, killing 39 people and engulfing some ten slum dwellings situated below, including one belonging to the applicant. The applicant alleged that the facts complained of gave rise to violations of the ECHR including Article 2 (right to life), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Article 6(1) (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), and of Article 1, Protocol No.1 (protection of property).
Decision and Reasoning
Held there had been a violation of Article 2 ECHR due to the lack of appropriate steps to prevent the death of the applicant’s close relatives, a violation of Article 2 on account of the lack of adequate protection by law safeguarding the right to life, a violation of Article 1 (protection of property) and a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).
In relation to Article 2, the Court noted that the risk of the explosion had been highlighted in a report long before the accident and that the risk could only have increased over time. It was impossible for the departments responsible not to have known of the risks. Reviewing the warning which had been received, and the limited actions taken by the municipal authorities, the Court reiterated that the right to life set out in Article 2 does not solely concern deaths resulting from the use of force by state agents but also lays down a positive obligation on states to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction. They accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 2.
The Court held that under Article 1, Protocol No.1 the Turkish authorities had a positive obligation to take practical steps to avoid the destruction of the dwelling. Regarding a violation of Article 13, the Court noted that the domestic Court had taken 4 years and 11 months to reach its decision indicating a lack of diligence on the part of the domestic court. The Court noted that there had been a breach of the requirement of promptness and the administrative proceedings had not provided the applicant with an effective remedy.
In relation to Article 2, the Court noted that the risk of the explosion had been highlighted in a report long before the accident and that the risk could only have increased over time. It was impossible for the departments responsible not to have known of the risks. Reviewing the warning which had been received, and the limited actions taken by the municipal authorities, the Court reiterated that the right to life set out in Article 2 does not solely concern deaths resulting from the use of force by state agents but also lays down a positive obligation on states to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within their jurisdiction. They accordingly held that there had been a violation of Article 2.
The Court held that under Article 1, Protocol No.1 the Turkish authorities had a positive obligation to take practical steps to avoid the destruction of the dwelling. Regarding a violation of Article 13, the Court noted that the domestic Court had taken 4 years and 11 months to reach its decision indicating a lack of diligence on the part of the domestic court. The Court noted that there had been a breach of the requirement of promptness and the administrative proceedings had not provided the applicant with an effective remedy.
Outcome
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court decided unanimously to award the applicant US$2,000 (reimbursement of funeral expenses), €45,250 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and €16,000 for costs and expenses. The Court also awarded €33,750 to each of the applicant’s adult sons for non-pecuniary damage.
Link
Disclaimer
This case law summary was developed as part of the Disaster Law Database (DISLAW) project, and is not an official record of the case.
Document
Document