Information Note on the Court’s case-law 190
November 2015
M. Özel and Others v. Turkey - 14350/05, 15245/05 and 16051/05
Judgment 17.11.2015 [Section II]
Article 2
Positive obligations
Article 2-1
Effective investigation
Applicability of Article 2 in context of loss of life resulting from earthquake
State’s failure to establish responsibilities for death of earthquake victims: violation
Facts – The applicants’ relatives were victims of an earthquake which, in 1999, caused the collapse of buildings in which they were living in the town of Çınarcık.
Before the European Court, the applicants complained of a breach of their relatives’ right to life, as protected by Article 2. In particular, they accused the municipal authorities of having authorised developers to erect blocks of flats five or more storeys high in an area prone to seismic activity and of failing to carry out the necessary inspections to ensure the conformity of the buildings or to prevent their construction. They also complained about the conduct of the criminal proceedings and about their inability to secure the prosecution of the civil servants they considered responsible.
Law – Article 2
(a) Substantive limb – The State’s obligation of prevention in relation to earthquake damage, under the substantive limb of Article 2, mainly consisted in taking measures to reduce its effects to limit the scale of the catastrophe as far as possible, particularly through land planning and control over urban development. The Court observed that the authorities had been aware of the risk of earthquakes in the devastated area. However, the earthquake in question had had catastrophic repercussions in terms of human life on account of the collapse of buildings which failed to comply with the safety and construction standards applicable to the zone concerned. In that connection it appeared established that the local authorities, whose role it was to monitor and inspect constructions, had failed in their duties in such matters. However, the Court found that this part of the complaint was out of time, the applications having been lodged more than six months after the national authorities’ decisions concerning the complaint under the substantive limb of Article 2, and thus rejected it.
Conclusion: inadmissible (out of time).
(b) Procedural limb – Criminal proceedings had been brought against the developers of the buildings which collapsed and the individuals directly involved in their construction, and the applicants had joined the proceedings as third parties. While recognising that the case was a complex one on account of the number of victims, the Court noted that only five individuals had been prosecuted and that the experts’ reports determining the defects and circumstances which caused the collapse of the buildings and the various responsibilities involved had been ready at an early stage. The importance of the investigation should have led the authorities to deal with it promptly in order to avoid any appearance of tolerance of illegal acts or of collusion in such acts. The length of the proceedings did not meet the requirement of a prompt examination of the case without undue delay. Only two of the defendants had actually been found responsible, while the proceedings were time-barred in the case of the three others. In addition, the attempts by some of the applicants to persuade the authorities to start a criminal investigation in respect of civil servants had remained unsuccessful on account of a lack of prior administrative authorisation. Lastly, the applicants who had brought civil proceedings for compensation had had to wait between eight and twelve years before the civil courts delivered their judgments and the sums awarded to them for non-pecuniary damage resulting from their relatives’ deaths had been minimal. The Court thus took the view that the civil action for compensation was not, in the circumstances of the case, a remedy that could be regarded as effective.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: EUR 30,000 awarded to each applicant or couple of applicants in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claims in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.
(See also Budayeva and Others v. Russia, 11673/02 et al., 20 March 2008, Information Note 106, and Murillo Saldias and Others v. Spain (dec.), 76973/01, 28 November 2006, Information Note 92)
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy