CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 janvier 2018

.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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sBA99133 { width:86.14%; margin-left:13.95pt; border-collapse:collapse } .s335E46F { width:8.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s61C37923 { width:26.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD79D6BBD { width:13.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF5AD949C { width:14.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA3AEE8DB { width:19.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sBB07DB2D { width:17.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD82CE2D9 { width:8.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s73B03E79 { width:26.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA31D107D { width:13.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD7065C89 { width:14.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA5E29CCC { width:19.74%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s452EA0AD { width:17.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 29 January 2018   SECOND SECTION Application no. 12397/10 Kazım İMAK and Hatun İMAK against Turkey lodged on 19 February 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants’ son was allegedly involved in a terrorist incident which resulted in the death of a civilian. The Ministry of Interior (“the Ministry”) compensated the victim’s family for their losses and then brought proceedings to recover the sums paid to the victim’s family. The Ministry directed the lawsuit at the applicants on account of their son being dead shortly after the incident. The first-instance court noted that the applicants had not disclaimed the estate of their deceased son and on that basis found them together with other defendants jointly and severally liable for the pecuniary damages awarded to the Ministry. The applicants appealed against the judgment claiming that they had had no involvement in the incident and in any case they should not have been held responsible for the losses incurred by the Ministry. The Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal without replying to their main argument that they should have been presumed to have disclaimed inheritance pursuant to section   605 §   2 of the Turkish Civil Code as their son had not left any inheritable assets when he died. The applicants then requested a rectification of the Court of Cassation’s decision reiterating the same argument. The Court of Cassation rejected their request on the basis of stereotypical grounds. The applicants complain that they were held responsible for the actions of their son although they played no part whatsoever in the incident and their son died without leaving any assets. They refer to the similar cases in which the Court of Cassation did not hold the heirs financially responsible for the damage caused by the deceased on account of the fact that he or she died without leaving any inheritable assets within the meaning of section   605 § 2 of the Turkish Civil Code. The applicants’ complaint, in substance, challenges the reasoning given by the domestic courts and raises issues under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a violation of this provision on account of lack of reasoning in the decisions delivered by the appellate court with respect to the applicants’ argument that the deceased had no assets at the time of his death and that therefore his estate should have been considered to have been de jure disclaimed by the surviving heirs pursuant to section 605 § 2 of the Turkish Civil Code and the well-established case-law of the Court of Cassation (see, for example, Deryan v. Turkey , no. 41721/04, §§ 36-44, 21   July 2015)?     APPENDIX   N o . Firstname LASTNAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative   Kazım İMAK 1954 Turkish TUNCELİ M. Şakar   Hatun İMAK 1958 Turkish TUNCELİ M. Şakar