CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 2016

.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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sDDAFAC39 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:21.8pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4EFEAD { width:14.32pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   Communicated on 12 December 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 56681/09 Orhan GÜNLEMENÇ and Others against Turkey and 32 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the explosion that took place on 3 May 2004 in the vicinity of the TÜPRAŞ Oil Refinery (“TÜPRAŞ”) in Batman and the pecuniary losses suffered by the property owners in the area, including the applicants, as a result of the explosion and the ensuing fire. The main legal problem in the instant cases is the applicants’ inability to access the civil courts to claim compensation for their damages resulting from the explosion on account of the allegedly erroneous application of the time-limit rules, which issue falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The cases also raise an issue under Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention in respect of the State authorities’ positive obligations to protect the applicants’ property rights. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair trial within the meaning of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular; a.     Did the dismissal of the applicants’ compensation claims as being out of time violate their right of access to court, implicitly guaranteed by Article   6 § 1 of the Convention? Was the manner in which the national courts calculated the statutory limitation period in the applicants’ cases foreseeable and in compliance with the settled jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation regarding the application of Article 60 § 1 of the former Code of Obligations, particularly in view of the applicants’ arguments that (i) they had no way of ascertaining TÜPRAŞ’s liability for the oil leak prior to the Batman Civil Court of First Instance decision in case no. 2004/966 E.; and (ii) that the damage to their properties were still continuing on account of the ongoing oil leak? b.     In respect of the applicants who sought to increase their original compensation claims by way of an amendment ( ıslah ) or additional action ( ek dava ): i.     Did the applicants “know” ( ıttıla ), within the meaning of Article   60 § 1 of the former Code of Obligations, the identity of the party liable for the damage they had sustained at the time they brought their initial actions for compensation before the Batman Civil Court of First Instance, having regard to the fact that they had brought those actions against two different companies? ii.     Were the applicants in a position to reasonably assess the scope and extent of their damages prior to the submission of the court ‑ ordered expert reports during the initial compensation proceedings? c.     Did the applicants’ compensation claims qualify for an extended time ‑ limit envisaged under Article 60 § 2 of the former Code of Obligations? Could this issue be conclusively determined prior to the finalisation of the criminal proceedings brought against the TÜPRAŞ executives?   The parties are requested to submit sample decisions of the Court of Cassation regarding the interpretation and application of the time-limit rule set out in Article 60 § 1 of the former Code of Obligations in circumstances involving damage to property, with examples explaining when a victim of a tortious act is considered to “know” ( ıttıla ) the identity of the “tortfeasor” ( fail ) and the damage sustained, and what “damage” means for the purposes of the relevant provision. They are also requested to indicate, again with examples from the domestic case-law, whether the act of bringing an action for compensation constitutes conclusive evidence that the requisite knowledge has been acquired. The parties are further requested to submit the case files pertaining to the compensation proceedings initiated by the applicants before the Batman Civil Court of First-Instance, both in relation to the initial and the additional actions, where applicable, including the petitions lodged by the applicants with the first-instance and the appeal courts. The parties are lastly requested to submit a copy of the case-files pertaining to cases nos. 2004/963 E. and 2006/499 E. concerning the compensation proceedings before the Batman Civil Court of First Instance, including any expert reports submitted to those files and the decisions delivered by the Court of Cassation on appeal.   2.     Were the applicants’ rights to property, as protected under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, violated on account of the oil leak that led to an explosion on 3 May 2004? a.     Have the State authorities complied with their positive obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to take precautionary measures to protect the applicants’ properties (see Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no.   48939/99, §   134, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII)? In particular: i.     Were the State authorities aware of the oil leak prior to the explosion of 3 May 2004? ii.     Was there an adequate legislative framework in place to regulate and supervise the setting up and the operation of oil refineries, including town planning restrictions in their proximity? iii.     Did the State authorities sufficiently inform the applicants of the risks involved in owning properties in the vicinity of an oil refinery? iv.     Did the State authorities conduct an effective official investigation to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the explosion and to identify those responsible for it, including any State agents or authorities? v.     Were the applicants provided with an appropriate legal mechanism, with the necessary procedural guarantees, to vindicate their rights effectively, including by claiming damages in respect of the losses they had sustained (see, mutatis mutandis , Kotov v. Russia [GC], no.   54522/00, §§ 112-114, 3 April 2012)? b.     Is there a continuing restriction on the applicants’ use of their properties? If so, does that restriction amount to an interference? Moreover, what is the legal basis for that restriction and does it impose a disproportionate and excessive burden on the applicants?   The Government are requested to indicate whether the oil leak originating from the TÜPRAŞ Batman Oil Refinery has been stopped and to provide information as to the progress made in cleaning up the underground oil leak.   Appendix   No. Application No. Lodged on Applicant’s Name Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   56681/09 16/10/2009 Orhan GÜNLEMENÇ 03/05/1968 Batman Hasan GÜNLEMENÇ 23/11/1978 Batman Faik GÜNLEMENÇ 12/05/1981 Batman Halil GÜNLEMENÇ 29/03/1989 Batman Muhittin GÜNLEMENÇ 01/03/1992 Batman Yıldız TUNG 01/02/1973 Batman Türkan YILDIZ 02/01/1971 Batman Mesude YILMAZ 07/05/1974 İzmir Fatma GÖZEL 29/03/1983 Batman Ayşe GÜN 12/02/1967 Batman Emine TOPTAŞ 19/01/1962 Batman Leyla TUNG 31/08/1976 Batman Selime GÜNLEMENÇ 29/03/1985 Batman Mehmet Cemal İLGE   1937/10 17/12/2009 Zeki KAYIK 01/01/1958 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN   1942/10 17/12/2009 Abdulvahap KAYIK 01/01/1960 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN   3438/10 17/12/2009 Aydın PEKTAŞ 16/12/1969 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN   3446/10 17/12/2009 Mehmet KOLU 04/11/1984 Batman Ahmet KOLU 01/01/1981 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN   3816/10 17/12/2009 Cemil İBİN 10/02/1934 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN   3828/10 17/12/2009 Seyfettin FIRAT 09/09/1978 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN   3845/10 17/12/2009 Şabettin YAŞAR 30/03/1963 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN   16312/10 08/03/2010 Mahmut DOĞU 16/12/1947 Batman Mehmet Masum ERKEN             16433/10 08/03/2010 Zeki ÇİÇEK 04/05/1962 Batman Mehmet Masum ERKEN             16447/10 02/03/2010 Hüseyin KARA 01/01/1965 Batman Mehmet Masum ERKEN             17860/10 08/03/2010 GÖZKESER GIDA LTD. ŞTİ. Batman Mehmet Masum ERKEN             21974/10 30/03/2010 Abdulkadir FIRAT 18/07/1973 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN             21979/10 30/03/2010 Salih ÇİFTLİK 01/01/1950 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN             21981/10 30/03/2010 Sabri KUAŞ 01/01/1932 Batman Necat ÖZTAŞ 12/05/1974 Batman Necdet ÖZTAŞ 26/11/1970 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN             21988/10 30/03/2010 İbrahim FIRAT 15/06/1933 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN             21994/10 30/03/2010 Hikmet YARGI 01/01/1965 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN             22671/10 30/03/2010 Salih OKAY 30/01/1955 Batman Emine GÜLMÜŞ 10/04/1983 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN             22677/10 30/03/2010 Mazhar KURŞUN 02/05/1963 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN             22684/10 30/03/2010 İsmet YARGI 01/01/1965 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN             22685/10 30/03/2010 Abdulaziz İPEK 01/01/1956 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN             22687/10 30/03/2010 Abdullah YARGI 01/01/1970 Batman Abdulhamit ÇAKAN             26752/10 06/04/2010 Cengiz ACAR 10/10/1972 Batman Mehmet Masum ERKEN             26757/10 06/04/2010 Mehmet Beşir ÇİFTÇİ 05/10/1960 Batman Mehmet Masum ERKEN             26759/10 06/04/2010 Mehmet Ali ÖZ 05/03/1955 Batman Mehmet Masum ERKEN             26760/10 06/04/2010 Şeyh Memet GÜRBÜZ 15/09/1967 Batman Mehmet Masum ERKEN             26765/10 06/04/2010 Kadri ŞENSES 03/09/1978 Batman Mehmet Masum ERKEN             26767/10 06/04/2010 Memet Sait KURT 20/01/1938 Batman Mehmet Masum ERKEN             26769/10 06/04/2010 Mehmet Emin GÜNEŞ 02/01/1965 Batman Celal GÜNEŞ 06/06/1975 Batman Orhan GÜNEŞ 05/02/1968 Batman Mehmet Masum ERKEN             35034/10 01/06/2010 Tahir ALTUN 01/01/1965 Batman Murat KORKMAZ             40711/10 17/05/2010 Zeki ÇELİK 15/07/1947 Batman Mehmet Cemal İLGE             57001/10 31/08/2010 Yusuf ALTUN 01/01/1960 Batman Mehmet Masum ERKEN             32021/11 14/01/2011 Cemal ALTUN 01/01/1947 Batman Mehmet Masum ERKEN