Communicated on 30 August 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 12027/17 Fahri GÃœLER against Turkey lodged on 9 December 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant is a Turkish national who was born in 1968 and live in the district of Yazıhan , in Malatya. He is the local representative ( muhtar ) of the neighbourhood where he lives and where a private company was authorised by the administrative authorities to set up a cement plant. The application concerns the alleged failure of the national authorities to discharge their obligations to protect the applicant ’ s life, home and well ‑ being due to the setting up, next to his property, the cement plant. The applicant complains about the potential harm that is likely to be caused to his life, health and home and his and other residents ’ inability to be informed of the decisions taken for the setting up of the plant. He also complains that the domestic courts failed to examine his complaints. The applicant relies on Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention as well as Article 56 of the Constitution of Turkey, which guarantees the right to live in a healthy and balanced environment.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the present case (see López Ostra v. Spain , 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C ) ? In particular, have the State authorities discharged their obligation to protect the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life and home against the alleged potential damage? In this regard,

a. Has the cement plant in Yazıhan started operating?

b. Did the administrative authorities examine the balance between the competing interests, namely, between the alleged potential damage to the applicant ’ s life, home and well-being and the public interest when they authorised the setting up of the cement plant?

c. Were the applicant and other residents of the area adequately informed of the decision-making processes?

d. Did the Malatya Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court examine the substance of the applicant ’ s allegations?

e. Did the Constitutional Court discharge its duty to conduct a proper examination of the applicant ’ s individual application declaring it inadmissible?