CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 mai 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 9 May 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 53388/11 Zünbül DÜZ against Turkey lodged on 15 June 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s son’s death following a work accident (fall down an elevator shaft), which was allegedly brought about by the negligence of his employer and of the owner of the building where he worked in ensuring the upkeep of the elevator. The main legal problem in the instant case is the alleged ineffectiveness of the judicial response of the authorities in respect of the fatal accident, in particular, their failure to conduct the compensation proceedings initiated by the applicant against the responsible parties (private persons) in a speedy manner, which may raise an issue under Article 2 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Has the applicant’s son’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? In particular, did the respondent State comply with its positive obligations under Article 2 of the Convention by providing the applicant with a remedy capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault for her son’s death and providing appropriate redress (see, for instance, Ciechońska v. Poland , no. 19776/04, § 66, 14 June 2011)? Were the compensation proceedings brought by the applicant before the Istanbul Labour Court concluded within a reasonable time (see, for instance, Prynda v.   Ukraine , no. 10904/05, § 52, 31 July 2012, and Sıdıka İmren v.   Turkey , no.   47384/11, §§ 63-67, 13 September 2016)?