SECOND SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 34885/06 by Nurettin DEMİR and Çiçek DEMİR against Turkey

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 30 June 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Françoise Tulkens, President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Vladimiro Zagrebelsky, Danutė Jočienė, András Sajó, Nona Tsotsoria , Işıl Karakaş, judges , and Sally Dollé , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 August 2006,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The app licants, Mr Nurettin Demir and Mrs Çiçek Demir , are Turkish nationals who were born in 1976 and 1975 respectively and live in Manisa. They are represented before the Court by Mr C. Hüseyni, a lawyer practising in Manisa.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

On 31 July 2002 the applicants ’ three-year-old daughter, while walking with the second applicant, was severely injured and later died, after a rubbish container she had touched fell on top of her.

Subsequently criminal proceedings were instigated against the second applicant and Mr A.L., a municipal official in charge of rubbish containers, for negligent homicide.

On 15 September 2003 an expert report held that no fault could be attributed to the accused as the responsibility lay with the Turgutlu Municipality, on the basis of the notion of service fault ( hizmet kusuru ), since the wheels of the rubbish container in question were broken and it had been placed on an uneven floor.

On 25 February 2002 the second applicant was acquitted of the charges against her. The proceedings against Mr A.L. were halted since no prior authorisation for prosecution had been obtained in accordance with domestic legislation.

On 11 November 2004 the Turgutlu District Governor ’ s Office declined to grant the necessary authorisation for Mr A.L. ’ s prosecution. In its decision the District Governor ’ s Office noted that, under the provisions of the contract concluded between the Turgutlu Municipality and the firm responsible for rubbish collection, it was the responsibility of the firm to repair the faulty container and to inform the municipal official in charge of rubbish containers.

On 8 December 2004 the Manisa Regional Administrative Court dismissed an objection by the prosecutor and upheld the decision of the Turgutlu District Governor ’ s Office.

On 7 February 2005 the prosecutor, noting that authorisation to prosecute Mr A.L. had been refused, gave a decision not to prosecute him.

In the meantime, on 16 January 2004, the applicants had applied to the Turgutlu Municipality for compensation. Since no response was received, the applicants brought an action for compensation in the Turgutlu First-Instance Court against the Municipality on 13 May 2004.

On 1 July 2004 the first-instance court dismissed the applicants ’ claim for compensation on the ground that they had submitted it too late ( s ü re aşımı ). In this connection, the court, referring to section 13 of Law no. 2577, noted that since the applicants could have easily foreseen that the responsibility of the Municipality was engaged, they should have applied to the relevant authority within a year following the death of their child.

On 9 February 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court , by a majority, upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. A request by the applicants for rectification of its judgment was also dismissed by the same court on 13 February 2006.

B. Rele vant domestic law and practice

Section 13 of Law no. 2577 (Code on Administrative Procedure) provides that persons who have suffered damage on account of a wrongful act of the administration must apply to the relevant authority for rectification of the situation within a year from the date on which they were notified or otherwise learned of the impugned act, before bringing a lawsuit.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain ed under Article s 6 and 13 of the Convention that, despite the fact that their child had died as a result of negligence on the part of Turgutlu Municipality officials, those responsible for the incident had not been prosecuted and their attempt to obtain compensation in administrative proceedings had proved futile .

The applicants also referred to Article 14 of the Convention without any further elaboration.

THE LAW

1. The applicants complain ed under Article s 6 and 13 of the Convention that, despite the fact that their child had died as a result of negligence on the part of Turgutlu Municipality officials, those responsible for the incident had not been prosecuted and their attempt to obtain compensation in administrative proceedings had proved futile .

The Court deems it appropriate to examine these complaints from the standpoint of Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

2. The applicants also invoked Article 14 of the Convention without any further elaboration.

The applicants failed to provide any reasons in support of their complaint under this head. It follows that this part of the application should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicants ’ complaints concerning the authorities ’ failure to prosecute those responsible for the death of their child and their inability to obtain compensation in the administrative proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

Sally Dollé Françoise Tulkens Registrar President