CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 12 April 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39854/11 Yavuz AKIN and Others against Turkey lodged on 19 January 2011 communicated on 26 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns 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 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 in order to request additional compensation for their alleged loss of rental income 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. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the dismissal of the applicants’ additional compensation claims in respect of the alleged loss of rental income as being out of time violate their right of access to court, implicitly guaranteed by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Kurşun v.   Turkey , no.   22677/10, 30 October 2018)? (a)     Was the manner in which the Batman Civil Court of First Instance calculated the statutory limitation period in the applicants’ case 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? (b)     Were the applicants in a position to reasonably assess the scope and extent of their damage arising from the loss of rental income within the one ‑ year time-limit as applied by the Batman Civil Court of First Instance? (c)     Did the Batman Civil Court of First Instance and the Court of Cassation duly take into consideration the applicants’ arguments that their additional claims concerned the alleged loss of rental income that occurred after the date of the first action and that their loss had been of a continuing nature?   The parties are requested to submit sample domestic court judgments regarding the interpretation and application of the time-limit rule set out in Article   60 §   1 of the former Code of Obligations in cases where the alleged damage is of a continuing nature.   The parties are also requested to submit the case file pertaining to the compensation proceedings before the Batman Civil Court of First-Instance, both in relation to the initial and the additional actions, including the expert reports prepared in the first set of proceedings concerning the alleged loss of rental income.