Communicated on 18 November 2015
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 9441/10
Arzum Makbule SİNİM
against Turkey
lodged on 21 January 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Arzum Makbule Sinim, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul. She is represented before the Court by Mr Ercan Kanar, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and as they appear from the documents submitted by her, may be summarised as follows.
On 5 August 2006 Ali Sinim, the husband of the applicant, was involved in a road traffic accident. He was one of the two passengers in a truck driven by M.S., who was the subcontractor of a transportation company. The truck was carrying goods belonging to Ali Sinim as well as barrels of inflammable liquids belonging to a client firm. After hitting another vehicle from behind, M.S. lost control of the truck which then fell on its side and caught fire. As the doors of the truck were blocked, all three became trapped inside and died.
A. The criminal proceedings
On 4 September 2006 the applicant, with the assistance of her lawyer, filed a criminal complaint with the Sultanbeyli prosecutor against A.S., who is an heir of the deceased driver M.S.; the driver of the other vehicle which was hit from behind; and the transportation firm and the company which owned the inflammable liquid.
The applicant alleged that the death of her husband had been caused due to the transportation of the inflammable liquid in the truck. She argued that her husband had been totally unaware that such dangerous liquids were being carried in the truck and that, had he been properly informed of their presence, he would never have accepted to ride in it.
On 6 May 2007, at the request of the Sultanbeyli prosecutor, a traffic engineer submitted an expert report, assessing that the driver M.S. had been liable for the accident and that the driver of the other vehicle had not been at fault.
The following day the prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution in respect of M.S. and the driver of the other vehicle in respect of the offence of manslaughter. The public prosecutor stated on the basis of the expert report dated 6 May 2007 that the deceased truck driver M.S. had been the only person responsible for the accident.
On 29 June 2007 the applicant filed an objection against the prosecutor’s decision. She reiterated that her husband had not been informed that inflammable liquids were being carried in the truck. She also argued that the prosecutor had failed to identify the firms involved in the transportation of such dangerous liquids.
On 4 September 2007 the Kadıköy Assize Court rejected the objection against the decision not to prosecute which it found to be in accordance with the rules of procedure and law.
On 23 May 2008 the applicant filed a complementary request asking the Sultanbeyli prosecutor to prosecute A.S. as well as the transportation company and the client firm which owned the inflammable fuel.
On 10 July 2008, at the request of the Sultanbeyli prosecutor, the Forensic Institute submitted an expert report, in which it was concluded that neither the two firms nor M.S. had been responsible for the accident.
On 25 May 2009 the Sultanbeyli prosecutor rendered another decision not to prosecute in respect of the representatives of the transportation company and the client firm. In his decision the public prosecutor stated, on the basis of the expert report dated 10 July 2008, that none of the firms’ representative had been liable for the accident.
On 17 June 2009 the applicant filed an objection against the decision not to prosecute rendered on 25 May 2009. In general terms, she pointed out that the evidence in the file clearly proved that both the transportation firm and the client firm had been responsible for the accident.
On 23 July 2009 the Kadıköy Assize Court rejected the objection filed by the applicant against the decision of non-prosecution rendered on 25 May 2009, which it found to be in accordance with the rules of procedure and law.
B. The civil proceedings
In the meantime, on 16 July 2007 the applicant lodged a compensation claim before the Civil Court of First Instance against the firms involved in the transportation of the inflammable liquids, the heirs of M.S., the heirs of the other passenger on the truck as well as the insurance company.
On various dates between 2012 and 2014, upon the request of the civil court, various expert reports were prepared to assess the liability of the respondents.
The compensation proceedings are still pending.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention that the national authorities rendered non-prosecution decisions without properly taking into consideration the evidence. She adds that the issue of the liability of the firms was not investigated properly, no witnesses were heard, and that the expert report prepared in the course of the criminal proceedings was not communicated to her.
Relying on Article 13 of the Convention the applicant claims that the national remedies were not effective. She alleges in this connection that the expert report prepared during the criminal proceedings was not impartial and that the investigation was not conducted objectively or diligently.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a violation in the present case of the applicant’s husband’s right to protection of the right to life by law, guaranteed in Article 2 of the Convention?
2. In particular, were the proceedings conducted in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention? More precisely, did they comply with the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition inherent in Article 2 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy