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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline }   Communicated on 22 May 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 54700/11 Lütfiye KAYAN against Turkey lodged on 5 July 2011 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the serious physical injuries sustained by the applicant as a result of the traffic accident caused by the public bus in which she was riding as a passenger. Five passengers lost their lives in the same accident, and fifteen others were seriously wounded. The criminal proceedings into the incident resulted in the conviction of the bus driver and his sentence to seven and a half years’ imprisonment. The compensation proceedings brought by the applicant in May 2000 against the Municipality of Çukurkuyu and the bus driver ended in May 2006, with the award of 274,594   Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 150,560 euros (EUR) at the material time) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY   5,000 (approximately EUR 2,742 at the material time) as non-pecuniary damage, plus interest. Despite the execution proceedings she has commenced against the Municipality and the bus driver, it appears that the applicant has not been able to receive any of the compensation awarded by the civil court. The principles concerning the Contracting States’ positive obligations under Article 2 to protect the right to life are equally applicable to serious interference with the right to physical integrity falling within the scope of Article   8 of the Convention (see 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). The case therefore 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 capacity of the judicial apparatus to provide adequate civil redress to the applicant, having regard to the inordinate delay in the execution of the civil court’s judgment.       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 her 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 she had sustained in a public bus and to obtain civil redress for her 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.     Has the applicant been able to receive the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages ordered by the Bor Civil Court of First Instance on 10   May 2004? ii.     Could the remedy before the Bor 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? iii.     Has the Niğde Enforcement Office ( İcra Müdürlüğü ), or other competent State authorities, taken all the reasonable measures to enforce the judgment of the Bor Civil Court of First Instance? In this connection, can municipal properties and revenues be seized ( haciz )? If so, have any measures been taken to seize any properties or revenues of the Municipality of Çukurkuyu in order to enforce the judgment of the Bor 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 Niğde 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 .