CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7940ED5C { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline }   Communicated on 17 May 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no.   471/13 Recep TOPÇUOĞLU against Turkey lodged on 15   November 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the work accident sustained by the applicant on board a ship. The compensation proceedings brought by the applicant against his employer were dismissed. The case raises issues under Article   8 of the Convention as to whether the judicial response in the aftermath of the accident had been effective, particularly as regards the adequacy of the expert reports relied on by the domestic courts to establish the fault of the applicant’s employers for the accident and the length of the compensation proceedings. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of all the circumstances of the case, was the applicant a victim of a violation of Article   8 of the Convention on account of the alleged infringement of his right to physical integrity?   2.     Did the respondent State comply with its positive obligations under Article   8 of the Convention by providing the applicant with an effective remedy to establish any liability for the physical injury he had sustained at his work place and to obtain civil redress for his injury as appropriate (see, mutatis mutandis , Trocellier v.   France (dec.), no.   75725/01, 5   October 2006; Codarcea v.   Romania , no.   31675/04, §   103, 2   June 2009; and S.B. v.   Romania , no.   24453/04, §   70, 23   September 2014)? In particular:   i.     Did the domestic courts take all the necessary steps and obtain all the relevant evidence to elucidate the circumstances of the accident and the extent of the applicant’s employers’ responsibility for it? In that connection, did the Kartal Labour Court review the relevant rules on work safety, including any training requirements, with a view to establishing whether the applicant’s employers had complied with them? ii.     Did the applicant have the possibility of obtaining an effective expert examination of the causes of the accident (see, for instance, Eugenia Lazăr v.   Romania , no.   32146/05, §§   83-85, 16 February 2010, and Altuğ and Others v.   Turkey , no.   32086/07, §§   78-82, 30 June 2015)? iii.     Were the findings of the experts properly scrutinized by the domestic courts (see, for instance, Vasileva v.   Bulgaria, no.   23796/10, §   66, 17   March 2016)? In particular, when dismissing the applicant’s compensation claim, did the Kartal Labour Court take into consideration the finding in the Social Security Institute report that the employers had been at fault for leaving the applicant unsupervised and the finding of the court ‑ appointed expert that the accident had been caused due to the “lack of knowledge” of the applicant as a new employee? iv.     Was the applicant able to participate in the compensation proceedings effectively? In particular, did the Kartal Labour Court take into account the evidence submitted by the applicant to the case file and did it provide sufficient reasoning for its decision to dismiss his compensation request? Did the Court of Cassation take into account the applicant’s objections to the Kartal Labour Court’s judgment? v.     Were the relevant judicial proceedings concluded within a reasonable time, considering the interest at stake in the instant case (see, for instance, Codarcea v.   Romania , no.   31675/04, §   106, 2   June 2009)? The parties are requested to indicate whether any criminal proceedings had been initiated into the incident and, if so, to submit a copy of the case file . The Government are also requested to indicate the date on which the reasoned judgment ( gerekçeli karar ) of the Kartal Labour Court (2008/590   E.–2012/108 K.) was served on the applicant or his lawyer .