CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 février 2019

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 1 February 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 69989/10 Zübeyir İPEKYÜZ against Turkey lodged on 3 September 2010 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the explosion that took place on 3 May 2004 in the vicinity of the TÜPRAŞ Oil Refinery (“TÜPRAŞ”) in Batman and the pecuniary losses suffered by the property owners in the area, including the applicant, as a result of the explosion and the ensuing fire. The main legal problem in the instant cases is the applicant’s inability to access the civil courts in order to request additional compensation for his damages resulting from the explosion on account of the allegedly erroneous application of the time-limit rules, which issue falls to be examined under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair trial within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the dismissal of the applicant’s request to increase his compensation claim by way of an additional action as being out of time violate his right of access to court, implicitly guaranteed by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? (a)     Was the manner in which the Batman Civil Court of First Instance calculated the statutory limitation period in the applicant’s case foreseeable and in compliance with the settled jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation regarding the application of Article 60 § 1 of the former Code of Obligations? (b)     Did the applicant “know” ( ıttıla ), within the meaning of Article 60 §   1 of the former Code of Obligations, the identity of the party liable for the damage he had sustained at the time he brought his initial action for compensation before the Batman Civil Court of First Instance, having regard to the fact that he had brought it against two different companies? (c)     Was the applicant in a position to reasonably assess the scope and extent of his damage prior to the submission of the report of the court ‑ ordered experts during the initial compensation proceedings?   The parties are requested to submit the case file pertaining to the compensation proceedings before the Batman Civil Court of First-Instance, both in relation to the initial and the additional actions, including the petitions lodged by the applicant with the first-instance and the appeal courts .