Published on 7 June 2021

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 5815/13 İsmet ÇET İ NKAYA against Turkey lodged on 11 December 2012 communicated on 17 May 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the explosion that took place in 1998 at the Istanbul Spice Bazaar ( Mısır Çarşısı ), killing 7 persons and injuring 127 others. The applicant, who was working in one of the restaurants at the entrance of the Bazaar, was severely wounded. According to medical reports, he suffers from 28 % disability. Following the explosion, several sets of proceedings were initiated before the domestic courts. Although there was a suspicion that the explosion was due to a terror attack, according to the information in the file the real cause has not yet been established and the proceedings are still pending.

In that connection, criminal proceedings were initiated against those suspected of carrying out a terror attack and the applicant joined the proceedings as a third party. Several contradictory expert reports have been submitted during the proceedings as to the cause of the explosion. While some of them stated that it was a bomb attack, some suggested that it was due to the explosion of gas tubes in the restaurant that the applicant had worked for. According to the documents in the file, the proceedings are still pending, and the cause of the explosion remains undetermined.

The administrative action initiated by the applicant on 15 September 2006 before the Istanbul 8th Administrative Court was dismissed for being introduced out of time as it was considered that the applicant had to initiate the proceedings within five years following the incident. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court in 2014. The applicant maintains in this regard that Law no. 5233, which constituted the basis of his legal action, was adopted in 2004 and that the cause of the explosion had been accepted as a terror attack by the Istanbul Governor on 1 June 2006. He thus considers that he had complied with the time-limits set by domestic law.

As to the compensation proceedings initiated against the applicant ’ s employer for the pecuniary damage he had suffered, this case was dismissed by the Istanbul Labour Court on the ground that it had not been established that the explosion was due to a gas explosion.

Finally, the case lodged by the applicant against his employer for non ‑ pecuniary damage is still pending before the Istanbul 7th Labour Court.

Relying on Articles 2, 6, 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complains about the ineffectiveness of the domestic proceedings as a whole .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention, was the investigation and the subsequent sets of domestic proceedings in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?

In that connection:

- Were the proceedings in compliance with the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition inherent in Article 2 of the Convention?

- Were the remedies available to the applicant in the present case capable of establishing the facts holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress to the applicant? In particular, has the applicant, who suffers from 28 % disability due to the explosion, received any compensation for the severe injury he has suffered?

The parties are requested to submit information about the current situation in the criminal proceedings and the labour court proceedings.