Information Note on the Court’s case-law 61

February 2004

Taşkın and Others v. Turkey (dec.) - 46117/99

Decision 29.1.2004 [Section III]

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Use of toxic substance in mining: admissible

Article 2

Article 2-1

Life

Use of toxic substance in mining: admissible

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1

Peaceful enjoyment of possessions

Effect on the value of property of activities damaging to the environment

In 1994 the Ministry of the Environment approved the use of the technique of sodium-cyanide leaching to extract gold from a mine near İzmir. The applicants, who lived in the vicinity of the mine, applied to have that decision set aside on the ground that their health and safety would be at risk. In May 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court concluded, on the basis of expert assessments, that there were risks of environmental damage and harm to human lives and that the safety measures to which the company operating the mine had undertaken to conform were not sufficient to avert them. Consequently, in October 1997 the Administrative Court annulled the company’s mining licence. The applica nts asked the appropriate authorities to ensure that the court ruling was enforced. In October 1999 an expert report submitted at the Prime Minister’s request concluded that the risks to human lives and the environment outlined in the Supreme Administrativ e Court’s judgment had been reduced to an acceptable level. Having regard, in particular, to the report, the Prime Minister’s Office concluded in April 2000 that mining should be allowed at the site. Later that year, the authorities authorised the continua tion, on a provisional basis, of the use of cyanide for mining and extended the licences for operating the mine. In March 2002 the Cabinet decided that the gold mine could continue to operate. In the meantime, in September 2001, following an action for dam ages brought by the applicants, the Court of Cassation had held that the relevant ministers had not taken any steps to prevent mining from being carried out using the cyanide-leaching process, despite having been notified that the mining licence had been a nnulled. Subsequently, in October 2002, the Court of First Instance decided to award the applicants compensation for the damage resulting from the authorities’ failings.

Admissible under Articles 2, 6 (right to a court), 8 and 13.

Inadmissible under Articl e 1 of Protocol No. 1.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes