CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s71604A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s3756EA5F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s3BD36361 { font-family:Arial; color:#00b050 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8FE8E970 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6C2746C6 { margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s6047437D { width:11.03pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7BC83BD2 { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4817FE66 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.75pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7E447BAE { width:130.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sF1E8DEEB { width:113.58%; border-collapse:collapse } .s28BE940D { width:6.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s4A8DA54D { width:37.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB0801E9C { width:24.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD2BC34B3 { width:16.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s11ADA21B { width:15.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF0AA8FC7 { width:6.82%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347491E6 { width:37.2%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s68EF20E5 { width:24.02%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE6CF84F6 { width:16.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6C38EDA8 { width:15.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff }   SECOND SECTION CASE OF CANGI AND OTHERS v. TÜRKİYE (Application no. 48173/18)   JUDGMENT   Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Applicants’ participation in administrative proceedings on an environmental impact assessment decision concerning the extraction of gold using cyanide leaching at a mine • Art 6 §   1 applicable only in respect of applicants who lived or owned a property in close proximity to the goldmine as outcome of proceedings directly decisive for their right to live in a healthy environment • Incompatibility ratione materiae in respect of remaining applicants not living in the mine’s vicinity and not personally and directly affected by its operation • Applicants’ “public watchdog” role or informal movement they created in relation to environmental implications of gold mines insufficient to consider proceedings directly decisive for their civil rights and obligations Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Adversarial trial • Inability of applicants to put questions to court-appointed experts, not a breach of their right to participate effectively in proceedings • Issue accentuated before trial court concentrated on specialised and technical area of law and not a particular aspect of applicants’ personal rights at stake Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Non-communication of documents assessed and relied on to a large extent by court-appointed experts, impaired applicants’ right to adversarial proceedings • Opportunity to consult a case file not, of itself, a sufficient safeguard   STRASBOURG 14 November 2023   FINAL   08/04/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Cangı and Others v. Türkiye, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Egidijus Kūris,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Saadet Yüksel,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Frédéric Krenc,   Diana Sârcu , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   48173/18) against the Republic of Türkiye lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by six Turkish nationals (“the applicants”) indicated in the appended table, on 17   September 2018; the decision to give notice to the Turkish Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the observations submitted by the Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants; the comments submitted by the International Commission of Jurists, which was granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 10 October 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicants’ complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that in the administrative proceedings they had lodged, they had not been allowed to participate effectively in the court-appointed expert examination procedure. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants, whose details are set out in the appendix, were represented by Mr A. Cangı, the first applicant and a lawyer practising in İzmir. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Hacı Ali Açıkgül, Head of the Department of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Türkiye. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties and as can be seen from the documents submitted by them, may be summarised as follows. 5.     On 27 June 2003 the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (“the Ministry”) issued a private commercial company (“the developer”) with a decision approving the environmental impact assessment report (“the EIA report”) concerning the extraction of gold using cyanide leaching at a mine situated in Gümüşkol-Ulubey in the city of Uşak (“the Kışladağ mine”). 6.     On 14 April 2004 the applicants applied to the Manisa Administrative Court for the annulment of the Ministry’s decision. At the time of the proceedings, the developer had been granted a test permit. The developer also intervened in the administrative court proceedings on behalf of the Ministry. 7 .     During the course of the proceedings, the Manisa Administrative Court appointed an expert panel and conducted an on-site inspection in the presence of the parties. In their report of 19 October 2005, the experts pointed out, among other risks, the likelihood of acid mine drainage as a result of the formation of a large open pit lake after the cessation of mining activities and the consequent contamination of ground water, without indicating the extent of the contamination. In response to the Manisa Administrative Court’s request for an additional report from the panel regarding that point, the experts submitted, by a majority, that the open pit would not be very deep – at most a one or two-metre deep pool of water. The experts also noted that the measurements in the EIA report were accurate in that respect. 8.     On 9 October 2006 the Manisa Administrative Court dismissed the case on the basis of the findings in the additional expert report. 9.     On an appeal by the applicants, on 6 February 2008 the Supreme Administrative Court set aside the decision of the Manisa Administrative Court, noting that the expert opinion on the basis of which that court had delivered its decision was neither compatible in form with the principles set out in the relevant legislation nor did it contain sufficient technical assessments which would allow the court to reach a positive or negative opinion about the EIA report in question. The Supreme Administrative Court further held that the dispute should be reassessed after seeking the opinion of another expert panel which should consist of experts in the fields of the environment, mining and geology. It therefore remitted the case to the Manisa Administrative Court for a fresh examination. 10.     On remittal, the Manisa Administrative Court ordered a fresh expert report to be drawn up by both a specialist in the field of chemistry and a new panel of experts consisting of three specialists in the fields of the environment, mining and geology. 11.     On 8 October 2009 the Manisa Administrative Court held an on-site inspection in the presence of the experts and the parties. According to the minutes of the on-site inspection, the parties had no objections in respect of the competence and neutrality of the experts, and they agreed that they would submit their observations on the expert report when it was communicated to them. The same day the applicants submitted to the Manisa Administrative Court the list of questions they wanted the experts to address in addition to the questions that would be directed to them by the court. Their questions, of which there were twenty-three in total, can be grouped under four major headings: (a)     Questions relating to ground water, the water consumption of the project and whether the calculations in this respect in the EIA report were accurate in the light of the major aquifer in the area and the latest tests conducted on site, in particular: –     the source and quantity of the water that would be used annually in the application of lime to the process of the agglomeration of the ore in order to attain a 5% humidity level, and whether that was reflected in the mathematical modelling; –     the source and quantity of the water that would be used daily in maintaining hygiene and staff facilities as well as washing the dust off of the roads, and whether – given the large area the plant covered – the figures in the EIA report were realistic in the light of the expected daily operations of the mine; –     whether the modelling in the EIA report with respect to the major aquifer in the area reflected its current geological position and heterogenic characteristics; whether the fact that the modelling was based on geological data dating back more than twenty-five years could be taken as a basis for the water levels; and whether in this respect the EIA report had presented the aquifer as much bigger than it actually was. (b)     Questions relating to water quality, in particular, the applicants requested that the source of the water to be used by the process and by the workers on the project be identified separately and tested by way of samples taken from different parts of plant, including the waste water, and compared to the estimates in the EIA report. (c)     Questions relating to waste, in particular whether the gravel chosen to prevent the potential acid drainage from the mine was an appropriate engineering method; whether the toxicity of the waste ore (stockpiling of the tailings) that would be stacked had been accurately classified, including the length of time it would remain toxic; and whether the precautions set out in the EIA report were adequate, including the positioning of the leach in the light of possible erosion, in particular: –     in so far as the EIA report itself had identified acid drainage as a potential risk, whether the method of placing rocks which were less likely to create acid drainage underneath and around the edges of the stacked waste ore was efficient and specifically how the developer would determine which rocks in the waste ore would be less likely to produce acid drainage. (d)     Questions relating to the cyanide process, with respect to the amount of cyanide currently stocked in the facilities, the pH value of the cyanide solution in the heap leach process – since the EIA report referred to different pH values in different parts of the report – how much of the 40,000 tonnes of sodium cyanide would dissipate into the air and turn into hydrogen cyanide, whether the 11 mg/m3 indicated in the report was safe, and also: –     the amount of residual cyanide left behind in the heap leach, how much of it was expected to remain in the lake and how much of it would be attached to solids; the reason the EIA report did not contain any information in this respect; –     given that there was a cyanide action plan annexed to the EIA report, whether the surrounding villages had been informed of the steps they needed to take in the event of being exposed to unsafe levels of hydrogen cyanide; –     identification by the experts of the location of air monitoring and sampling stations. In addition, how much cyanide could be expected to remain in the waste ore and under what conditions was it expected to seep into the air or water, and whether the fact that there had been no assessment or undertaking in this respect in the EIA report was a major shortcoming. Lastly, they wanted to know whether the cyanide poisoning that had recently been observed in certain villages, the death and sickness of livestock, and the loss of bees could be related to cyanide use in the facilities. 12.     The applicants’ list of questions was not given to the experts as the court instructed the experts to respond to the subjects it had prepared itself. In particular, the court requested from the panel of experts the following: (a)   a summary of the EIA report and the subjects discussed therein; (b)   whether the mining area actually conformed to the way that area was described in the EIA report with respect to the area’s topography and its flora and fauna; (c)   what kind of production process and method were envisaged in the light of the type of ore in the area; (d) whether the EIA report contained the generally accepted global standards applicable to similar gold mines and ore enrichment processes; (e) an explanation of the method chosen by the developer for the ore enrichment process and an assessment of its environmental impact by determining whether the precautionary measures to eliminate or minimise the environmental effects chosen were adequate; (f)   an explanation of the alternative methods used in the industry for the extraction of gold ore and a discussion of whether the cyanide heap leaching method to be used in this project was being considered out of convenience or necessity, and whether the harm to the environment had been factored into the choice of this method; (g) whether there existed any other chemical alternative to cyanide in the recovery of gold and whether there were reasons that necessitated the use of cyanide for this mine in particular; (h) the nature of the modelling performed on the exploitation of open pits with respect to atmospheric events such as rain, and the reason why alternative mining methods such as block cave mining had not been considered; (i) identification of the potential consequences of overburdening the water resources and whether the EIA report contained appropriate assessments and solutions in this respect; (j) the manner in which the duration of the mining project had been calculated and whether the criteria used were based on maximising productivity or on the characteristics of the project area, such as sustainability of water resources, threshold of acid drainage, and capacity for acid neutralisation; (k) the type of tailings disposal, if any, that had been envisaged in the EIA report as well as the types of lakes where chemical solutions would be contained and whether the necessary precautions had been foreseen with a view to preventing contamination of the environment and in particular wildlife; (l) the nature of the plans envisaged in the EIA report for water management in the project, whether they were compatible with the principle of sustainability in respect of the aquifer in the region and whether the   EIA report provided for adequate alternative solutions in the event of an accident or emergency; (m) whether the ore subject to enrichment in the region contained any other metals and if so whether any of them contained arsenic, as well as a comparison of the average individual value of arsenic before and after the leaching of the ore with cyanide, and how the consequences of the tailings disposal and waste had been evaluated in the EIA report and whether the evaluation had been adequate; (n) whether the closure and post-closure plans envisaged in the EIA report were appropriate in the light of the region’s characteristics; (o) whether the size and the negative consequences of the open pit during the construction, operation and closure phases of the operation had been adequately determined and assessed in the EIA report; and   (p) whether there was any intensive agricultural activity within a 3   km radius beyond the health safety zone of the project area. 13.     As regards the chemistry expert, the Manisa Administrative Court gave him a list of eleven questions, some of which concerned general questions relating to cyanide, its health risks, cyanide-related accidents in mines, and others which related to the cyanide management plan set out in the EIA report, namely whether it had been prepared on the basis of a worst-case or best-case scenario; the quantity of cyanide that was going to be transported to the mine and under what conditions it was to be stored, and whether the EIA report contained relevant precautions in respect of those operations; whether precautions outlined in the EIA report with regard to the risk of earthquakes and heavy rainfall were sufficient; and, finally, whether the precautions as to the impermeability of the heap leach installation and the criteria to determine the thickness of the impermeable pad had been sufficient. 14 .     On 28 December 2009 the experts submitted their reports to the Manisa Administrative Court. Responding to the questions addressed to them by the Manisa Administrative Court, the panel of three experts noted the following: the EIA report had accurately taken into account the project area’s natural characteristics and topography, and the open-pit cyanide heap leaching method chosen by the developer was appropriate given the high tonnage, low-grade ore found in the area. They further concluded that the method preferred by the developer was the most economical, and the least energy and water consuming beneficiation method, which was preferred globally. The EIA report contained the necessary heading and subjects that would normally be expected from such reports. The experts outlined the negative risks to the environment in this type of mining process during the construction and operation phases of the mine as follows: dust and gas emissions, solid waste, loss of habitat, noise, potential contamination of surface and ground water, loss of flora and fauna, acid rock drainage, and destruction of the aesthetics of the area. In terms of dust emissions and air pollution, the experts noted that the precautions listed were adequate, and the testing performed in the Ovacık meteorology station as well as in the five nearby villages since February 2005 showed that the emissions were below the levels authorised by the relevant regulations. Similarly, the experts concluded that the noise levels, which had been monitored at regular intervals in the project area as well as in the nearby villages, remained within the permissible legal limits. With respect to water management and potential negative effects on water resources, the experts noted that the risk of acid rock drainage had been well studied in the EIA report and the precautions listed in that respect were adequate, and that the developer had undertaken to conduct more geological and hydrogeological tests during the later phases of the mine. During the working life of the mine, water collected in the mine would be reused in the process, and during the closure of the mine the tailings ponds would be filled with 100,000 tonnes of limestone in order to neutralise acid rock drainage. The experts also found the precautions listed in the EIA report with respect to flora, fauna and reclamation methods in those respects to be adequate. They noted that the high concentration of arsenic already present in the earth originated from the volcanic nature of the earth, which was not unusual, and that the precautions in the EIA report with a view to preventing contamination were adequate. The experts also considered that the covering of the ponds containing cyanide with shade balls and the construction of those ponds with two layers of impermeable liners and the addition of a separate barren pond would be sufficient to prevent the toxic contents of the ponds from interacting with the environment (air, water resources and wildlife). In terms of water use, the experts noted that the developer had been issued with a permit to use underground water resources for the mining operations, and the calculations with respect to the process for the duration of operation of the mine were within sustainable limits. The average arsenic concentration found in the ores corresponded to 190 ppm and the developer had taken all the necessary precautions to prevent it from contaminating ground and surface water. In conclusion, the experts considered that the operation and post-closure state of the mine would not pose health risks to the local population. They further noted that there was no intensive agricultural activity in the vicinity of the mine. In their findings, the experts referred to or quoted from assessments prepared by other experts with respect to the Kışladağ mine. Although the experts indicated that those assessments were in the case file, there is no information as to whether they were forwarded to the parties in the proceedings. 15 .     In his separate report submitted to the Manisa Administrative Court, the chemistry expert answered the questions related to cyanide. In sum, he noted that open-pit cyanide heap leaching was the most appropriate method for the type of ore found in the area, which was low grade and bulk tonnage gold ore. He further noted that the developer had been carrying out the operation since 2006 in compliance with the undertakings it had made in the EIA report. Cyanide, which was toxic for living beings, interfered with oxygen utilisation. He noted that almost all cyanide-related casualties in gold mines were as a result of a spill from a tailings pond, which in turn contaminated surface and ground water. He went on to add that the EIA report in question had taken into account, discussed and conducted relevant modelling of how the tailings pond would react in the event of heavy rainfall or a strong earthquake and that the developer had undertaken to take the precautions mentioned in the report. The expert noted that the mine would be operated on a zero discharge of hydrogen cyanide model, that is, waste cyanide would be washed and then evaporated in pools. On the basis of those findings and on condition that the undertakings and precautions outlined in the EIA report were adhered to by the developer, he considered that the cyanide heap leaching method would not cause any risks or negative effects beyond those that were acceptable. The expert noted that cyanide levels were being closely monitored by the authorities, that samples were tested on a regular basis at the university and that so far, all levels had been below those permitted. Similar to the expert panel’s report, the chemistry expert’s report referred to or quoted from assessments prepared by other experts with respect to the Kışladağ mine. 16.     Both expert opinions were forwarded to the parties for their comments. 17.     On 13 January 2010 the applicants submitted their objections to the Manisa Administrative Court. They argued, inter alia , that the experts had formed their opinions on the basis of best-case scenarios and drawn on other expert reports, which had been prepared on the developer’s initiative. They noted that those other reports had not been forwarded to them, that they had had no opportunity to examine them, and that there had also been no concrete assessment by the experts on the following points which had been outlined as concerns in the initial expert report ordered in the first set of proceedings (see paragraph   7 above): –     no predictions had been made on the extent of the effects of the acid mine drainage on ground water; –     the characteristics of the soil on which the heap leach solutions pond and gold recovery plant would be constructed; –     the EIA report did not indicate the precautionary steps to be taken in the closure and post-closure phases of the plant and it did not include a concrete plan for the closure of the plant; –     it was not clear how the overburden and waste rock would be treated during the operation and closure phases of the plant; –     the predictions as to water consumption had been based on incomplete data and there was a risk of depletion of ground water from overuse; –     in the calculation of foreseen particulate-matter levels, the models did not take into account dust from the dirt roads during the construction phase of the plant, process gases that would be emitted from the hydrometallurgical units, and the lead taken into account in those models did not factor in silica and arsenopyrite interactions, which could be expected given the geological characteristics of the ore; and –     no figures had been provided for the foreseen loss of livestock herding. 18.     On 13 October 2010 the Manisa Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ cases on the basis of the findings of the experts, after summarising the main points in their reports (see paragraphs 14-15 above). The court further noted that the EIA report had been prepared in accordance with globally recognised standards and contained the necessary components and risk assessments with respect to potential environmental impacts during the construction and operation of the project. The protective and emergency measures envisaged were adequate, which was supported by the analyses undertaken by a monitoring commission after the preparation of the report. The court further noted that it was satisfied with respect to the measures to be taken in the closure and post-closure phases. Lastly, the court rejected, without providing any reasoning, the applicants’ objections to the experts and their reports. 19.     The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the applicants’ subsequent appeals on 4 November 2011 and 13 November 2013. 20.     On 28 February 2014 the applicants lodged an application with the Constitutional Court, arguing that their rights under Article 2, Article   6   §   1 and Article 8 of the Convention had been violated on account of the proceedings before the Manisa Administrative Court. In respect of their grievances under Article 6 § 1, they submitted, inter alia , that they had not been able to put their own questions to the experts; that the experts had relied on other reports which had not been communicated to them; that their objections with respect to the expert reports had been ignored by the trial court; and that, moreover, the Supreme Administrative Court had rejected their appeals without giving reasons. Under Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants argued, inter alia , that cyanide posed a danger to their health and their environment and that the operation of the mine was not safe. In that connection, they submitted that heavy metals, including high levels of arsenic, had been detected in one of the wells of the nearby village. They submitted five analyses of water samples, along with blood tests of certain residents demonstrating a worrying level of arsenic in their blood. They further submitted written exchanges with official authorities concerning the death of livestock, which they believed to be related to the presence of arsenic. 21.     In a decision of 24 January 2018, the Constitutional Court decided to examine the applicants’ complaints solely under the right to respect for their private lives and homes as provided in Article 8 of the Convention, and as such it only declared the applicant Mustafa Sakaryalı’s application admissible on account of the fact that he resided in a village near the mine and was a farmer. As for the rest of the applicants, the Constitutional Court declared their application inadmissible ratione personae on account of the fact that none of them lived or owned homes near the mine. As for the merits of Mustafa Sakaryalı’s complaint, the Constitutional Court considered that the procedural obligations inherent in Article 8 of the Convention had been observed in so far as the expert reports and the court’s reasoning had responded adequately to the applicant’s grievances in respect of the operation of the mine. In terms of the substantive merits, the court noted that the documentary evidence submitted by the applicant was inconclusive, as the reliability of the tests in respect of the standards employed and the conditions under which samples had been taken were open to doubt. The court further noted that the tests conducted during the on-site inspection by the Manisa Administrative Court and the experts’ findings did not support the allegations of the applicant. RELEVANT LAW DOMESTIC LAW Right to a healthy environment and EIA regulations 22.     The relevant legal framework can be found in Taşkın and Others v.   Turkey (no. 46117/99, §§ 90-97, ECHR 2004-X) and Okyay and Others v.   Turkey (no. 36220/97, §§ 46-59, ECHR 2005-VII). 23 .     In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Regulation on Environmental Impact Assessments, published in Official Gazette no.   26939 on 17   July 2008, which was in force at the relevant time, no project involving industrial activity requiring an EIA could go ahead in the absence of a decision by the Ministry to approve the EIA report submitted by the developer. The EIA process began when a developer submitted an application file for that purpose. An EIA commission within the Ministry consisting of Ministry officials, representatives of the developer and other representatives of public institutions evaluated the application form and, if it found it to be complete, announced the project to the public. A meeting was organised for the public to express its views and those views were included in the EIA report; during that period, the EIA commission decided whether a special format was necessary for the EIA report. Once that process had been completed, the developer submitted the EIA report to the commission and the commission began its review. When the final EIA report was submitted to the commission, the report was also published for comments to be received within ten days. At the end of that period the commission evaluated the EIA report in the light of the comments received by the public and issued a decision to approve or reject the project. Codes of Administrative and Civil Procedure 24.     Article 31 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (Law no.   2577) refers to the Code of Civil Procedure for matters relating to experts, on-site inspections, and evidence. The relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (Law no. 6100) provide as follows: Article 266 – expert evidence “Where the examination of the case requires technical or expert knowledge, the court shall of its own motion or at the request of a party appoint an expert. No expert shall be heard in respect of matters which are within the general and legal competence of a judge.” Article 273 § 1 – mandate of the expert “The court shall, after consulting with the parties, include the following in its decision appointing an expert: (a)     a clear and conclusive determination of the subject matter to be assessed; (b)     questions to be answered by the expert; (c)     deadline by when the report is to be submitted.” Article 278 § 1 – expert’s duties “The expert shall carry out his or her duties under the direction and supervision of the court.” COUNCIL OF EUROPE MATERIALS 25.     On 27 June 2003 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation Rec(2003)1614 on environment and human rights. The relevant part of this recommendation states as follows: “9.     The Assembly recommends that the governments of member states: ... 9.3.     safeguard the individual procedural rights to access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters set out in the Aarhus Convention;” 26.     The relevant parts of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice’s Guidelines on the role of court-appointed experts in judicial proceedings of Council of Europe’s Member States (CEPEJ(2014)14) state as follows: “4.10       Instructions of the court and of the parties 76.     Specific instructions given by the court concerning the production of the expert opinion, that include instructions concerning the content, the procedure and the report of the expert, have to be obeyed. Parties may ask questions on the report for clarification before the matter comes to trial. 77.     The court or the administrative body of the court that appointed the expert must have the opportunity to give instructions concerning the specific production of the expert opinion (of the assessment/report). 78.     The parties to the lawsuit or trial need to be extensively informed about the instructions of the court that are given to the expert. The general principle of the right to be heard must be adhered to. 79.     The court may also ask the expert to draw up a preliminary report, to be submitted to the parties prior to the submission of his/her final report. This practice lessens the risks of omissions or mistakes during the expert appraisal and clarifies the expert’s position on a given matter, thereby also decreasing the risk of subsequent litigation over the expert opinion. ... 8.1       Binding effect of the expert opinion 134.     The expert opinion is not binding on the court or on the parties. The court evaluates it freely. The court must verify and determine whether the expert opinion is objectively convincing. In so doing, the court has to consider all objections that have been made against the expert opinion by the parties. 135.     The expert opinion is introduced into the judicial proceedings by written submission or by verbal explanation during the lawsuit. The parties and the court must have the right to ask the expert questions. The expert is obligated to give his opinion in the matter and may have to report an additional expert opinion. Discussion of the content of the expert opinion with the expert can be actuated by introducing and opposing it to private expert opinions already available or still to be obtained. 136.     However, the way to question the expert is different from a real cross-examination that can only be conducted with witnesses. The right to question the expert solely refers to an understanding in terms of content and to the control of scientific correctness of the expert’s statements.” THE LAW         ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION 27.     The applicants complained that their right to a fair trial had been violated on account of the fact that (i) they had not been given an opportunity to put their own questions to the experts, (ii) the expert opinions had not been forwarded to them for comments, and (iii) the domestic courts had not responded to their objections to the conclusions of the experts. They relied on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” Admissibility Compatibility ratione personae and ratione materiae (a)    The parties’ submissions 28.     The Government first contested the applicants’ victim status, arguing that the proceedings before the Manisa Administrative Court had not related to direct and personal rights of the applicants and that their action had taken the form of an actio popularis , which fell outside the scope of the Convention guarantees. They submitted in that connection that, in accordance with the practice of the Turkish administrative courts, an action for annulment could be lodged by anyone with a sufficient interest with the purpose of challenging the alleged unlawfulness of an administrative act and without having to prove that his or her rights were directly affected by it. However, the applicants had neither argued that they had suffered actual harm from the operation of the plant nor established that they lived sufficiently close to the location of the mine to be significantly affected. In that connection the Government submitted that except for Mustafa Sakaryalı, all the applicants had lived some 200   km away from the plant. Lastly, the Government argued that the applicants had failed to present reasonable and persuasive evidence as to the possibility of a violation affecting them personally. 29.     The Government argued, secondly, that the applicants’ complaints did not concern “civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention. In that connection, the Government noted that while the applicants had relied before the domestic courts on their constitutional right to live in a healthy environment, they had failed to demonstrate any imminent harm affecting them personally from the operation of the plant. In the Government’s view, the applicants’ action had been intended to dispute the very principle of gold mining itself and as such the dispute did not relate to the applicants’ civil rights. On the contrary, the applicants’ action had concerned solely with the defence of collective environmental interests and the connection between the right they had invoked and the impugned decision of the Ministry was too tenuous and remote. The Government considered that the applicants’ complaint should be assessed in the light of the Court’s findings in Balmer‑Schafroth and Others v. Switzerland (26   August 1997, §   40, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997‑IV) and Athanassoglou and Others v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 27644/95, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV) rather than Okyay and Others v. Turkey (no. 36220/97, ECHR 2005 ‑ VII). 30.     The applicants first submitted that, in addition to Mustafa Sakaryalı, the applicant Muammer Sakaryalı had immovable property within the 16   km radius of the plant and for that reason, he was directly affected by the operation of the plant. As for the remaining applicants, they noted that they were concerned citizens, living in İzmir, who had come together as part of a movement called ELELE , studying and assessing the legal, social and environmental implications of gold mines in the Aegean region, which comprised the city of Uşak as well. (b)    Submissions of the third-party intervener 31.     The International Commission of Jurists made submissions regarding the applicability of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in the specific context of environmental litigation in Türkiye. They noted that among the two available legal remedies in the Turkish administrative law context, an action for a full remedy could only be lodged by persons whose subjective rights had been affected by administrative acts, whereas annulment actions could be lodged by anyone whose interests had been affected by an administrative act. They noted that up until 2011, the Supreme Administrative Court had interpreted the concept of interest broadly by recognising and giving standing to all citizens as interested parties in issues regarding the protection of environmental, cultural and historical values. [1] The relatively expansive approach to legal standing started to change in 2011, when, for example, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that Bar associations had no legal interest to lodge an application against environment-related projects. [2] The intervener went on to add that in a decision of 2016 concerning the environmental impact of an ore enrichment facility, the Supreme Administrative Court had denied standing to environmental activists, noting that they did not have direct links to the area. [3] The court required that complainants either had to own property, have residence or have been born in the relevant area to have an interest in requesting the cancellation of the project. The intervener noted that as a result of recent developments in the determination of standing, the administrative courts sought a connection between the individual and the place where the environment-related projects, such as mining and energy, were taking place. Concerning the Constitutional Court’s approach with respect to victim status concerning environment-related rights, the intervener submitted that only those constitutional rights that were also within the scope of the Convention could be raised in individual applications. In applications relating to the protection of life, health, family and private life, physical integrity and private property of persons, the Constitutional Court required the applicants to demonstrate that they were directly and personally affected by the administration’s acts, the concept of legal interest as understood in Turkish administrative law or being granted standing in courts not being sufficient for this assessment. [4] However, the intervener submitted examples from the Constitutional Court’s case-law in which that court, while declaring the applicants’ Article 2, Article 8 or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 complaints inadmissible for lack of victim status, did not examine separately the admissibility or merits of Article 6 complaints despite the fact that those applicants had been granted standing in annulment actions before the administrative courts. [5] 32.     The intervener argued that irrespective of those developments, the right to a healthy environment remained a constitutional guarantee in Türkiye and whether an individual had a legal interest in an annulment action could only be decided through a fair hearing conducted in line with the constitutional and Convention standards. Given that the civil nature of the right to a healthy environment had remained unaltered since the judgment in Okyay and Others (cited above), they asked the Court to find that any dispute relating to this right be considered to fall within the scope of Article   6   §   1. They further made a link with Chiarra Sacchi et al. v.   Türkiye (UN doc.   CRC/C/88/D/108/2019), a climate change case brought by sixteen non-national children against five States, including Türkiye, in which the Turkish Government had submitted, inter alia , that the complainants had failed to exhaust domestic remedi