Communicated on 18 September 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 61984/12 Fatma YAÄžLI and others against Turkey lodged on 24 July 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the death of the applicants ’ husband and father Azmi Ya ÄŸ l ı , a construction worker, following a work accident in March 1997, which involved his fall off a building under construction. The applicants brought compensation proceedings against the employer, which resulted in the award of a substantial amount of pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damages (approximately 340,000 euros (EUR) in total, including interest running from the date of the incident). The applicants have not yet been able to receive the said amount, despite the enforcement proceedings they have brought against the employer company, which has declared its bankruptcy in the meantime.

The case mainly raises issues under Article 2 of the Convention as to whether the State authorities have fulfilled their positive obligations to provide the applicants with an adequate judicial response in the aftermath of the death of Azmi Yağlı , having regard to their apparent inability to secure the enforcement of the civil court judgment in their favour .

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been a violation of the right to life under Article 2 of the Convention on the facts of the instant case?

2. Did the respondent State comply with its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention by providing the applicants with an effective remedy to establish any liability for the death of their husband and father Azmi Yağlı at his work place and to obtain civil redress for their damages as appropriate (see, for instance, Ciechońska v. Poland , no. 19776/04, § 66, 14 June 2011)? In particular;

( i ) Have the applicants been able to receive the pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damages ordered by the An kara Labour Court on 31 October 2000? If not, have the enforcement proceedings instituted by the applicants against the employer to recover the judgment debt been conducted diligently?

(ii) Following the declaration of bankruptcy of the employer company in 2004, has the bankruptcy estate handled the bankruptcy proceedings diligently to ensure the discharge of the bankrupt company ’ s debt owed to the applicants to the extent possible? In that connection, was the money owed to the applicants classified as a “privileged debt” ( imtiyazl ı alacak ) by the bankruptcy estate in accordance with section 206 of the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (Law no. 2004), in order to ensure its payment with priority before all other subordinated debts?

(iii) Could the remedy before the Ankara Labour Court be considered to have been effective in practice having regard to the applicants ’ inability to enforce it for an extended period of time?

3 . Does the non-execution of the Ankara Labour Court ’ s judgment amount to a violation of Article 6 § 1 and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?

The Government are requested to provide the Court with a copy of the file pertaining to the enforcement proceedings initiated by the applicants, as well as a copy of the bankruptcy proceedings, including information regarding debts discharged by the employer ’ s bankruptcy estate.