CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 janvier 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 21 January 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 47384/11 Sıdıka İMREN against Turkey lodged on 17 June 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS     The applicant, Ms Sıdıka İmren, is a Turkish national, who was born in   1945 and lives in Ankara. She is represented before the Court by Ms   E.   Varnalı, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 18 December 2002 a fire broke out at the workplace of Serpil İmren, the applicant’s daughter. Serpil İmren was seriously injured during the fire and hospitalised. On 17 January 2003 Serpil İmren died in the hospital. 1.     Criminal proceedings brought against M.Y. and K.N.Y. before the Ankara Assize Court Following the investigation into the fire, criminal proceedings were brought against two suspects, namely Mr. M.Y. (one of Serpil’s colleagues) and Mr. K.N.Y. (Serpil’s employer). They were charged with causing a fire with negligence. On 29 April 2005 the Ankara Assize Court convicted the suspects as charged and sentenced each of them to ten months’ imprisonment and to a judicial fine. The court held M.Y. and K.N.Y. responsible as the former had tried to ignite a stove with gasoline and the latter had not taken necessary measures of work safety in accordance with the law. M. Y. and K. N. Y. appealed against the judgment of 29 April 2005. On 13 October 2008 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment. It held that the first-instance court should have considered whether the procedure of suspension of pronouncement of judgment (hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması) should be applied in respect of the convicted. On 26 February 2009 the first-instance court convicted the suspects once again and sentenced them to the same term of imprisonment and the fine as before. The Ankara Assize Court did not suspend the pronouncement of the judgment. On an unspecified date M.Y. and K.N.Y. appealed once again. On 27 December 2010 the Court of Cassation held that the criminal proceedings should be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred. 2.     Proceedings brought by the applicant before the Ankara Labour Court On 5 November 2003 the applicant lodged a case with the Ankara Labour Court against the firm ( KROS Petrol Madeni Yağ Tur. İnş. Eml. İth. İhr. San. Tic. Ltd. Şti. ) for which her daughter had worked and claimed compensation for her death. On 3 March 2009 the applicant lodged another case with Ankara Labour Court against Mr. K. N. Y. as employer and representative of the firm, and asked this case to be joined with the former case against the firm. On 15 July 2009 Ankara Labour Court joined these two cases. On 8 February 2012 the first-instance court was informed that the criminal proceedings against M. Y. and K. N. Y. were time barred. The court ordered several expert examinations regarding the amount of the compensation demanded and requested information for state authorities as to other allowances that the applicant had obtained from public institutions during the proceedings. On 20 June 2013 Ankara Labor Court decided to request the Social Security Institution to provide information as to whether the applicant had received a funeral allowance. According to the information submitted by the applicant on 19   August   2013, the proceedings before the Ankara Labour Court are currently pending. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Articles 1 and 6 of the Convention that neither the criminal nor the civil proceedings brought against the persons responsible for the death of her daughter yielded a result.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention in the present case? In particular, having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life, were the investigation and the ensuing criminal and civil proceedings effective within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention?