CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   Communicated on 22 May 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 69885/12 Ali KARAGÖZ against Turkey lodged on 17 August 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the death of the applicant’s 16 year-old son after being hit by a car. The criminal proceedings initiated into the accident were discontinued as the prosecution of the relevant offence had become time-barred. The compensation proceedings against the driver resulted in the award of some pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the applicant, which he has not been able to recover to this date. The case raises issues under Article 2 of the Convention as to whether the State authorities had fulfilled their positive obligations to provide the applicant with an adequate judicial response in the aftermath of his son’s death. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant’s son’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, been violated in the present case? 2.     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 surrounding the death of his son, holding accountable those at fault for the death and providing appropriate redress (see, for instance, Ciechońska v. Poland , no. 19776/04, § 66, 14   June 2011)? In particular; i.     What was the appropriate judicial response to the applicant’s son’s death, having regard to the fact that he was run over by a driver under the heavy influence of alcohol, which the Court of Cassation and the Eskişehir Criminal Court of First Instance characterised as an act of “causing death through recklessness” ( bilinçli taksir )? ii.     Were the criminal proceedings against the accused driver conducted diligently? iii.     Has the applicant been able to receive the pecuniary and non ‑ pecuniary damages ordered by the Eskişehir Civil Court of First Instance on 27 April 2004? iv.     Could the remedy before the Eskişehir Civil Court of First Instance be considered to have been effective in practice having regard to the applicant’s inability to enforce it for an extended period of time? v.     Has the Eskişehir Enforcement Office ( İcra Müdürlüğü ), or other competent State authorities, taken all the reasonable measures to enforce the judgment of the Eskişehir Civil Court of First Instance? Are there any other steps that the applicant could have been reasonably expected to take to secure the enforcement of the judgment of the Eskişehir Civil Court of First Instance?   If no payment has yet been made to the applicant, the Government are requested to provide the Court with an official document, issued by the Eskişehir Enforcement Office or other competent State authority, indicating the current amount of the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages due to the applicant, together with interest .