Communicated on 14 September 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 55901/11 Ä°brahim KAVAKLI and others against Turkey lodged on 16 May 2011

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the death of the applicants ’ mother, Fendiye Kavakl ı , following a fire that broke out at her house in Ç orum . In compensation proceedings they brought before the Çorum Administrative Court against the Municipality of Çorum , the applicants argued that the fire brigade had failed to extinguish the fire in a timely manner on account of various technical problems with the fire trucks. Although the expert opinion submitted to the administrative court established that the Municipality had been 75 % responsible for the death due to the problems with the fire trucks, that court found that Fendiye Kavaklı must have lost her life prior to the arrival of the fire brigade, and therefore concluded that there was no causal link between the death and the defective fire trucks.

The main issue in the application concerns the effectiveness of the administrative proceedings initiated into Fendiye Kavaklı ’ s death within the meaning of Article 2 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

Has the applicants ’ mother ’ s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case?

In particular, did the respondent State comply with its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention by providing the applicants with a remedy capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault for their mother ’ s death and providing appropriate redress (see, for instance, Ciechońska v. Poland , no. 19776/04, § 66, 14 June 2011 )? In this connection:

(a) Were the judicial proceedings before the Çorum Administrative Court concluded within a reasonable time (see, for instance, Prynda v. Ukraine , no. 10904/05 , § 52, 31 July 2012 )?

(b) May the Çorum Administrative Court be deemed to have submitted the case to the careful scrutiny required by Article 2 of the Convention in reaching its conclusion regarding the liability of the Municipality of Çorum (“the Municipality”) for the incident? In particular, did the Çorum Administrative Court use all the means available to it to establish when the fire brigade sent to the site of the incident actually responded to the fire, whether they were held back by any technical problems encountered with their equipment and, if so, to what extent such delay contributed to the applicants ’ mother ’ s death? Did it resort to any witness evidence to clarify these matters?

(c) Did the applicants have the possibility of obtaining an effective expert examination, including by a medical expert, of the Municipality ’ s responsibility for their mother ’ s death? Did the expert report dated 5 February 2009 sufficiently address all the technical issues involved regarding the causes of the victim ’ s death and provide pertinent reasons for its conclusions (see, mutatis mutandis , Eugenia Lazăr v. Romania , no. 32146/05 , § 85, 16 February 2010, and Vasileva v. Bulgaria, no. 23796/10 , § 66, 17 March 2016 )?

(d) What medical evidence did the Çorum Administrative Court rely on in determining that the applicants ’ mother had lost her life prior to the arrival of the fire brigade to the site of the fire?

The Government are requested to provide the Court with a copy of the case file pertaining to the proceedings before the Çorum Administrative Court, including the appeals lodged by the applicants against the administrative court decisions, as well as a copy of the fire report dated 29 January 2006.

The Government are also requested to indicate whether criminal proceedings were initiated into the death of Fendiye Kavaklı and, if so, to provide the Court with a copy of the criminal case file.