CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mai 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } SECOND SECTION Application no. 4447/08 Yaşar ÇELEBİ and Şaban ÇELEBİ against Turkey lodged on 16 January 2008   The facts and complaints in these cases have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT 1.     Were the proceedings carried out at the domestic level in breach of Articles 2 and/or 6 of the Convention?   a)     Could the expert opinion given by the Social Insurance Institution Supreme Health Board be considered to have enabled the determination of the applicant’s case, having regard to the fact that it consists of a conclusion that the death was not caused by occupational disease, without any explanation?   b)     Could the expert opinion given by the Forensic Medicine Institute be considered to have enabled the determination of the applicant’s case, having regard to the facts that no post mortem examination had been carried out, that there was only one expert in lung diseases among eleven doctors sitting on the Committee, and that the patient’s medical history, his death records kept by the Social Insurance Institution Karadeniz Ereğli Hospital and the report of a specialised hospital, namely the Zonguldak Lung and Occupational Diseases Hospital, were not taken into consideration?   c)     In light of the foregoing, could it be considered that the applicant’s case was examined in accordance with Article 2 and 6?