CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2021

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sB8007969 { width:127%; border-collapse:collapse } .s5D759F71 { width:7.38%; 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 } .sD894FC81 { width:25.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA4760EC0 { width:24.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s48313F44 { width:16.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEA65E2AE { width:26.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA6763D37 { width:7.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sCDD55F3 { margin-left:14.17pt; padding-left:3.68pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s44D52388 { width:25.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s42E35DA3 { width:24.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s665050E2 { width:16.22%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5E097C4D { width:26.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE58FF9D5 { margin-left:15.01pt; padding-left:2.84pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt }   Published on 25 October 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 65087/19 Arif Ali CANGI and Others against Turkey lodged on 20 November 2019 communicated on 8 October 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns administrative proceedings brought by the applicants challenging the Ministry of Environment’s decision approving an environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) report concerning the exploitation and operation of the Çaldağ nickel mine near the town of Turgutlu (Manisa) by a private developer. The first-instance court appointed a panel of experts and subsequently dismissed the case on the basis of the latter’s conclusions, holding the applicants’ objections to the composition of the panel and the assessment made by them on matters that were not within their field of expertise, to be manifestly ill-founded. The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicants’ appeal in a summary fashion without any specific reasoning. In a decision of 8 May 2019 the Constitutional Court examined the applicants’ individual appeal lodged under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention solely under Article 8 and rejected it, holding that the applicants did not have victim status in so far they failed to demonstrate in what way they were directly affected by the operation of the mine in question. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the decisions given by domestic courts, including the Constitutional Court, were not adequately reasoned in that none of their objections concerning the assessment of the expert panel were duly taken into account.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the alleged lack of sufficient reasons given by the domestic courts? In particular:   a.     Having regard to the applicants’ initial deposition setting out their grievances concerning the potential risks posed by the mine on agriculture and water resources within the 80 km of its radius, and their subsequent objections to the findings of the expert panel, did the domestic courts provide sufficient reasons with respect to the applicants’ pertinent and specific arguments concerning the composition of the expert panel and the assessment made by them on matters that were not within their field of expertise (see, mutatis mutandis , Deryan v. Turkey , no.41721/04, §   33, 21   July 2015) ?   b.     Furthermore how did the domestic courts conclude that the expert assessment was sufficient when the experts noted in their report that certain questions (those that were related to agriculture, vegetation and archaeology) asked by the first-instance court were not within the scope of their expertise and that their findings in this respect could only ever be general observations (see in this respect the applicants’ submissions regarding a decision in the opposite sense by the Supreme Administrative Court concerning a similar dispute involving the same mine E.2016/4525 K.2017/731 in the case-file annex 17)?   c.     Lastly, could it be said that the Constitutional Court compiled with its obligation to provide reasons vis-à-vis the applicants’ main complaint concerning the expert assessment when it decided to examine their individual appeal solely under Article 8 of the Convention despite the fact that the applicants had a separate Article 6 complaint (see, inter alia , García Ruiz v.   Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 26, ECHR 1999-I)?   The parties are requested to submit copies of all relevant documents, in particular the written submissions of the applicants throughout the proceedings, the interim decisions and the minutes of the on-site discovery hearing of the Manisa Administrative Court.   APPENDIX     No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence     Arif Ali CANGI 1964 Turkish İzmir     Adnan AYAN 1965 Turkish Turgutlu (Manisa)     Ertuğrul BARKA 1950 Turkish İzmir     İhsan CANDESTECİ 1959 Turkish Turgutlu (Manisa)     Ali Yaşar KAYABAŞ 1942 Turkish Turgutlu (Manisa)     Oya OTYILDIZ 1958 Turkish İzmir     Mehmet ŞAHİN 1959 Turkish İzmir