CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 juin 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 } .s7ACB8D74 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 29 June 2017   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12874/07 Nurten ERSOY and others against Turkey lodged on 9 March 2007 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants, Ms Nurten Ersoy, Mr Yalçın Ersoy and Mr Cemil Kara are Turkish nationals who were born in 1963, 1961 and 1952 respectively. They live in the district of Körfez, in Kocaeli. The application concerns the alleged failure of the national authorities to discharge their obligations to protect the applicants’ lives, homes and well ‑ being due to the setting up, in their neighbourhood, of an underground liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pipeline in accordance with a decision by the Körfez Municipality. The pipeline belongs to Milangaz LPG Dağıtım Ticaret ve Sanayi A.Ş., a joint stock company whose business is general distribution of petroleum and petroleum products. The applicants complain about the potential harm that is likely to be caused to their lives, health and homes. They also complain that the domestic courts failed to examine their complaints. They rely on Article 5 of the Convention, Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 and Article 12 §§ 1 and 2 (b) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicants claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34? In particular, (a)     Did the LPG pipeline constitute a danger for the applicants’ private lives, homes and well-being? What is the relevance of the fire which occurred on 3 December 2003? (b)     Did the authorities take any measures to protect the applicants’ lives, homes and well-being, particularly, after the fire of 3   December 2003?   2.     Were the applicants required to lodge a second case for the annulment of the revised master plan of 9 February 2001? In particular, (a)     What are the changes made by the revised master plan dated 9   February 2001? (b)     Was the LPG pipeline relocated subsequent to the adoption of the revised master plan?   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis , Öneryıldız v. Turkey [GC], no.   48939/99, ECHR 2004 ‑ XII; López Ostra v. Spain , 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-C; Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia , nos. 17423/05 and   5   others, 28 February 2012; Brincat and Others v. Malta , nos. 60908/11 and 4   others, 24 July 2014)? In particular, have the State authorities discharged their obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private lives and homes against the alleged potential damage? In this regard, (a)     Was there a legal framework regulating the setting up, operation, security and supervision of LPG pipelines at the relevant time? If so, did the relevant legislation allow for setting up of LPG pipelines in residential areas? (b)     Did the administrative authorities examine the balance between the competing interests, namely, between the alleged potential damage to the lives, homes and well-being of the applicants and the public interest in the setting up of the pipeline? ©   Did the national courts examine the substance of the applicants’ complaint under Article 8 of the Convention? What is the relevance of the judgment of 23 November 2004 and the decision of 12 October 2005 in this respect?   4.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in the present case? In particular, having regard to the procedural obligations under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, did the applicants benefit from a procedure which allowed them to have the substance of their complaint under this head examined by the national courts (see, mutatis mutandis , Gereksar and Others v. Turkey , nos. 34764/05 and 3 others, § 54, 1   February 2011)?