Communicated on 17 May 2017

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 65283/11 Özlem TURAN and Eylem ERGÜ N against Turkey lodged on 20 September 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the serious injuries sustained by the applicants ’ father after falling down a wastewater hole at a cemetery. The applicants ’ father became paraplegic after the accident, losing full control of his lower extremities, as well as his bladder and bowel functions. The applicants ’ father brought compensation proceedings against the relevant State authority for his pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, but he had already lost his life by the time the proceedings were concluded.

The case rai ses issues under Article 8 of the Convention as to (i) whether the State authorities had taken all necessary measures to protect the applicants ’ father ’ s physical integrity, and (ii) whether the judicial response in the aftermath of the accident had been effective, including whether the judicial proceedings had been conducted diligently and with reasonable expedition having regard to the interest at stake.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. In the light of all the circumstances of the case, was the applicants ’ father a victim of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention on account of the alleged infringement of his right to physical integrity? In particular, did the relevant State authorities take all reasonable measures to eliminate the dangers posed by the unguarded wastewater hole at the Ankara Cebeci Asri Cemetery?

2. Did the respondent State comply with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention by providing an effective remedy to establish any liability for the physical injury that the applicants ’ father had sustained and to obtain civil redress for his injury as appropriate (see, mutatis mutandis , Trocellier v. France ( dec. ), no. 75725/01, 5 October 2006; Codarcea v. Romania , no. 31675/04, § 103, 2 June 2009; and S.B. v. Romania , no. 24453/04, § 70, 23 September 2014)? In particular;

i. Having regard to the interests at stake, and in particular to the expenses involved in the treatment and care of a paraplegic person with no control over his bladder and bowel functions, were the compensation proceedings before the Ankara Administrative Court conducted with sufficient promptness (see, mutatis mutandis , Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, § 195 and 211, 9 April 2009, and Oyal v. Turkey , no. 4864/05, §§ 71, 74 and 75, 23 March 2010)?

ii. Can the applicants still claim to be victims of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention, having regard to the compensation they received from the relevant State authorities on 3 May 2011? Did the allegedly excessive length of the administrative proceedings undermine the appropriateness and sufficiency of the redress in question?

iii. Did the applicant ’ s father bring a compensation claim against the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality ( Ankara B ü y ü k ş ehir Belediyesi ), in addition to the claim he brought against the Ankara General Directorate for Water and Infrastructure ( Ankara Su ve Kanalizasyon İ daresi Genel M ü d ü rl üğü )? If not, why did the Ankara Administrative Court decide to include the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality as a party to the proceedings on 27 November 2008, noting in particular that a request to that effect had previously been rejected on 12 November 2004? Have the aforementioned decisions of the Ankara Administrative Court prevented the applicants or their father from asserting their rights against the Ankara Metropolitan Municipality in any way?

3. Did the applicants comply with the six-month time-limit in respect of their complaints pertaining to the proceedings before the Ankara Administrative Court? In particular, was the service of the judgment of the Ankara Administrative Court dated 13 January 2011 made in accordance with the Notification Act (Law no. 7201)?

The Government are requested to provide the Court with a copy of the criminal and administrative case files pertaining to the accident at issue, including all interim decisions delivered by the Ankara Administrative Court .

Appendıx

1. Özlem TURAN is a Turkish national who was born in 1974, lives in Ankara and is represented by B. Demir .

2. Eylem ERGÃœN is a Turkish national who was born in 1978, lives in Ankara and is represented by B. Demir .