CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juin 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sDDFEA0C3 { width:87.22%; margin-left:13.3pt; border-collapse:collapse } .sE87BCA71 { width:8.62%; 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 } .sE725D256 { width:21.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDC175EC3 { width:21.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s10313278 { width:27.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB8882FFD { width:8.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD5329576 { width:21.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1733C187 { width:21.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF414FD1A { width:27.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 2 June 2020 Published on 22 June 2020   SECOND SECTION Application no. 81415/12 Memik ÇÖÇELLİ and Others against Turkey lodged on 9 October 2012 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns two sets of administrative proceedings where the applicants challenged the Ministry of Environment and Forests’ (“the Ministry”) decision approving the environmental impact assessment reports concerning the construction and operation of two high-capacity cement production plants in Kahramanmaraş. The applicants, who are the local residents of Pazarcık village, in Kahramanmaraş, claimed before the domestic courts that the construction and operation of the plants would put their livelihood at risk because of the plants’ impact on the area’s agricultural and water resources. They further claimed that the explosives used in the construction sites of the plants had already caused cracks and foundational damage in their homes. On 29 May 2009 the Gaziantep Administrative Court dismissed the case on the basis of the expert reports taken out in the proceedings. The applicants’ respective appeals to the Supreme Administrative Court were dismissed in final decisions of 20   March 2012. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the administrative proceedings had been unfair in that: (1) the courts did not give them sufficient time to challenge the composition of the expert panel (2) the quality of the expert panel reports which played a decisive role in the administrative courts’ decisions was questionable as the experts made a number of biased comments against the applicants (such as accusing them of fear-mongering, of being closed-minded against technology and development, and of trying to deliberately mislead the court) (3) the applicants’ grievances in that respect were not addressed by the courts who refused to take out an alternative expert opinion and did not give any reasons for their decisions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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, having regard to their allegation that they were not given an adequate and proper opportunity to challenge the composition of the expert panel? 2.     Did the experts lack neutrality vis-à-vis the parties having regard to the expressions employed by the experts and the tone and language of their report? Did the domestic courts duly examine and respond sufficiently to the applicants’ objections concerning the lack of neutrality of the expert panel (see, mutatis mutandis , Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland , no.   31930/04, §§ 28-53, 5 July 2007; Letinčić v. Croatia , no.   7183/11, §§   46-51, 3 May 2016; Devinar v. Slovenia , no.   28621/15,   §   48, 22 May 2018)? APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Birth date Nationality Place of residence 1 Memik ÇÖÇELLİ 1952 Turkish Kahramanmaraş 2 Hüseyin SİĞLAM 1967 Turkish Kahramanmaraş 3 Salman AKDENİZ 1970 Turkish Kahramanmaraş