SECOND SECTION
Application no. 34764/07
Mehmet DELİBAŞ
against Turkey
lodged on 3 August 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mehmet Delibaş, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Manisa. He is represented before the Court by Ms A. Şenol Can, a lawyer practising in Düzce.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 August 1999 an earthquake of 7,4 Richter magnitude struck north-western Turkey, including the city of Düzce, where the applicant used to live with his family. According to official numbers provided by Turkish authorities, 17,840 people were killed and 43,953 injured as a result of the earthquake. Moreover, thousands of buildings collapsed or were heavily damaged.
The building where the applicant lived was one of those which collapsed entirely during the earthquake. The applicant’s daughter, Nesrin Delibaş, who lived with him, died immediately during the collapse.
Due to the severe damage caused, mainly by the poor construction of the buildings in the region, numerous sets of criminal proceedings were brought against those responsible for the shortcomings in the constructions.
In that connection, on 31 August 1999 two persons were arrested with regard to the collapse of the building the applicant and his daughter had lived in: H.E., the general contractor and owner of the building, and S.D., the architect responsible for the construction’s technical aspects.
On 24 September 1999 the Düzce public prosecutor issued an indictment against the two, accusing them of causing general damage and death by negligence and by failure to comply with rules, pursuant to Article 383 of the then valid Criminal Code (Law no. 765).
On an unspecified date the applicant joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party.
On 19 January 2000 and 15 February 2000, respectively, H.E. and S.D. were released pending trial.
On 21 June 2001 the Düzce Assize Court found that the fifteen-year statutory time-limit, during which H.E. and S.D. could be held criminally liable, started running in 1985, when the official licence for the building was obtained. It held accordingly that the case was time-barred.
On 21 October 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment, holding that the statutory time-limit must start running from the day on which the building collapsed, that is 17 August 1999.
On 11 December 2003 the Düzce Assize Court found the two accused guilty as charged and sentenced them to ten months’ imprisonment and a fine.
On 6 July 2004 the Court of Cassation quashed the first-instance court’s judgment once again, this time as the court had not evaluated the statements of the civil parties, including the applicant.
Subsequently, on 7 June 2005 the Düzce Assize Court reiterated its previous findings and sentenced H.E. and S.D. to ten months’ imprisonment and a fine.
On an unspecified date the judgment became final in so far as it concerned S.D.
On 5 December 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment for the third time. The higher court found that the Assize Court had failed to evaluate the case in the light of the recent Criminal Code (Law no. 5237) which had entered into force on 1 June 2005.
On 21 February 2007, after finding that the statutory time-limit to be applied in the case was seven years and six months pursuant to Articles 102 and 104 of the former Criminal Code (Law no. 765), the Düzce Assize Court discontinued the case as that time had passed since the collapse of the building. The court also stated that the delay following the decision of the Court of Cassation was caused by its inability to inform one of the civil parties of the hearing, which constituted a procedural rule it was bound by.
Subsequently, on 23 October 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Assize Court.
COMPLAINT
The applicant argues under Articles 1 and 6 of the Convention that the authorities failed to conduct an effective criminal investigation against those who according to him were liable for his daughter’s death. In that connection, he maintains that the criminal proceedings against those persons lasted for an excessively long period of time, which resulted in the discontinuation of the case.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, § 104, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in compliance with Article 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy