Communicated on 20 October 2017
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 9986/08
Yakup ARAT
against Turkey
lodged on 22 February 2008
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the health problems experienced by the applicant due to his exposure to high levels of radiation at his State-owned work place. The compensation proceedings that he brought against his employer were dismissed as his condition was not found to qualify as an “occupational illness”.
The case mainly raises issues under Article 8 of the Convention as to whether the applicant’s physical integrity had been breached on account of his undue exposure to radiation, and whether he had had effective remedies available to him as required under Article 8, alone and in conjunction with Article 13.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. In the light of all the circumstances of the case, was the applicant 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 applicant’s employer take the necessary precautions set out in the relevant legislation to protect him against the harmful effects of radiation, such as by providing him with sufficient training and protective gear? Moreover, was the applicant fully informed of the hazardous nature of his occupation as required under Article 8 of the Convention (see, for instance, Brincat and Others v. Malta, nos. 60908/11 and 4 others, § 102, 24 July 2014, and the cases cited therein)?
2. Did the applicant have available to him an effective judicial remedy within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention, alone and in conjunction with Article 13, in connection with the alleged breach of his right to physical integrity? In particular:
(i) Were the judicial proceedings at issue concluded within a reasonable time?
(ii) Did the domestic courts take all the necessary steps and obtain all the relevant evidence in a timely manner to elucidate the causes of the health problems experienced by the applicant and the extent of his employers’ responsibility for those problems?
(iii) Did the applicant have the possibility of obtaining an effective and impartial expert medical examination of the causes of his health problems, having particular regard to the conflicting medical reports issued by various bodies and to the finding of the General Assembly of the Forensic Medicine Institute (in its report dated 20 April 2006) that the occupational nature of his illness could not be established on account of the insufficient medical examination of the etiology and nature of his problems at the material time (see, for instance, Eugenia Lazăr v. Romania, no. 32146/05, §§ 83-85, 16 February 2010, and Altuğ and Others v. Turkey, no. 32086/07, §§ 78-82, 30 June 2015)?
(iv) Did the Istanbul 4th Labour Court refuse to classify the applicant’s condition as an “occupational illness” on account of his alleged recovery in the meantime (judgment no. 2005/1074 E. 2006/767 K. dated 4 October 2006)? If so, was this approach compatible with section 11 (B) of the Social Security Act (Law no. 506), according to which short-term health problems arising as a result of one’s profession may also constitute an “occupational illness”?
3. Were the proceedings before the Istanbul 4th Labour Court concluded within a reasonable time, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
4. What was the final outcome of the compensation proceedings brought by the applicant before the Istanbul 3rd and 8th Labour Courts (cases nos. 1995/882 E. and 1999/276 E., respectively)?
The Government are requested to submit a copy of the case files pertaining to those proceedings.
5. Did the applicant duly exhaust all available domestic remedies in connection with his complaints under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy