CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 avril 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 28 April 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 44837/07 Erol ÇIÇEK and others against Turkey lodged on 14 September 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are Turkish nationals and represented by Mr Erol Çiçek and Ms Öznur Çiçek Bildik (the first and the second applicants) before the Court. The application concerns the alleged failure of the national authorities to discharge their obligations to protect the applicants’ right to respect for private and family life and to comply with domestic courts’ decisions rendered upon a case lodged by Mr Erol Çiçek and Mr Sedat Ata (the first and third applicants). The applicants reside about 500-600 metres away from a lime plant in the Orhangazi district of Bursa. They complain that their health suffered and their houses and living environment were damaged as a result of the plant operating near their houses and that the administrative authorities failed to enforce the administrative courts’ judgments. They allege that the plant should have been closed down subsequent to the judicial decisions. The applicants rely on Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants, except for Mr Erol Çiçek and Mr Sedat Ata, exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     What was the obligation arising out of the administrative courts’ judgments in the present case? In particular, can the Bursa Administrative Court’s judgment of 22 January 2007 (case no. 2006/2281 and decision no.   2007/31) and the Supreme Administrative Court’s decision of 19   January 2009 (case no. 2007/1630 and decision no. 2009/424) be considered to oblige the administrative authorities to order the closure of the lime plant which belongs to Karadeniz Madencilik (a public limited company), as alleged by the applicants? What steps have the administrative authorities taken with a view to complying with the aforementioned administrative court judgment?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention? In particular, have the State authorities discharged their obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private and family lives as well as their homes against the alleged harm caused by the lime plant (see Taşkın and Others v. Turkey , no. 46117/99, §§ 103-126, ECHR 2004 ‑ X)?   4.     Has the Bursa Administrative Court’s judgment of 22 January 2007 been   executed? If not, has its non-execution constituted a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Taşkın and Others v. Turkey , no.   46117/99, §§ 127-138, ECHR 2004 ‑ X , and Okyay and Others v. Turkey , no.   36220/97, §§ 70-75, ECHR 2005 ‑ VII?)