Communicated on 14 September 2016

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 55643/12 Halil Ä°brahim YAYLA and others against Turkey lodged on 18 June 2012

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the death of the applicants ’ son and brother, H ü seyin Yayla (aged 26), who drowned in rainwater that accumulated in an underpass in İ zmir following torrential rains. The applicants initiated compensation proceedings against the Municipality of İ zmir and the İ zmir Water and Sewerage Administration (together referred to as the “administration”) before the İzmir Administrative Court for failing to take the necessary safety precautions around the underpass despite being aware that it was submerged in water and presented a life threatening risk to passers-by. Relying on an expert report, the İ zmir Administrative Court decided that the main responsibility for the incident lay with the victim himself.

The main issues in the case concern the responsibility of the administration for the death of H ü seyin Yayla , and the effectiveness of the administrative proceedings that the applicants had initiated for the determination of that responsibility, both of which complaints fall to be examined under Article 2 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the State ’ s positive obligation under Article 2 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1, not only to refrain from the “intentional” taking of life, but also to take appropriate steps to safeguard the lives of those within its jurisdiction (see L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom , 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-III), has there been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention as a result of the death of the applicants ’ son and brother Hüseyin Yayla ? In particular, were sufficient measures taken by the relevant State authorities to prevent the dangers posed by the rainwater that accumulated in the underpass in question on the date of the incident?

2. Were the remedies available to the applicants in the instant case capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress in relation to the death of their son and brother, as required by the State ’ s positive obligations under Article 2 (see Ciechońska v. Poland , no. 19776/04, § 66, 14 June 2011)? In this regard:

(a) May the Ä°zmir 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 respective liabilities of the parties, including that of the victim, for the incident?

(b) Did the Ä°zmir Administrative Court use all the means available to it to establish the facts of the incident? In particular, did it summon witnesses in order to determine whether the necessary security measures had been taken around the underpass in question on the relevant day, a matter which appears to have been unresolved in the expert report dated 4 June 2009?

(c) Did the applicants have the possibility of obtaining an effective expert examination of the relevant State authorities ’ responsibility for Hüseyin Yayla ’ s death? Did the expert report dated 4 June 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) Were the applicants able to object to the findings of the expert report dated 4 June 2009? If so, were the applicants ’ objections taken into account by the İzmir Administrative Court?

(e) Did the İzmir Administrative Court provide the applicants with sufficient compensation in relation to the death of Hüseyin Yayla ?

The Government are requested to provide the Court with a copy of the case file pertaining to the proceedings before the Ä°zmir Administrative Court, including the objections and appeals lodged by the applicants against the expert reports and court decisions.

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

The Government are lastly requested to indicate whether payment has been made to the applicants in accordance with the judgment of the Ä°zmir Administrative Court and, if so, to specify the date and amount of payment made .