CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 décembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 125 December 2009 Kalender v. Turkey - 4314/02 Judgment 15.12.2009 [Section II] Article 2 Positive obligations Article 2-1 Life Effective investigation State’s obligations in respect of deaths arising out of rail accident; lack of effective investigation: violations   Facts – The applicants are relatives of two people who were killed in a railway accident in 1997. A criminal investigation was opened immediately after the accident and liability was found to be shared between the TCDD (Turkish National Railways) – the safety measures in the station being insufficient – and the victims, who had got off the train on the wrong side and had been attempting to cross the adjacent track by mistake. The train driver was acquitted of manslaughter and the criminal court then requested that a criminal investigation be opened into breaches of safety regulations on the part of the TCDD. However, the requested investigation was never opened. The applicants brought civil proceedings against the TCDD seeking compensation for their pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. The TCDD, for its part, claimed compensation for the pecuniary damage resulting from the delays caused by the accident. An expert appointed to assess the parties’ respective liability concluded that the victims were 60% liable and that the railway company was 40% liable. After bringing enforcement proceedings, the applicants obtained full payment of the corresponding compensation in June 2006. Law – Article   2: (a)   Substantive aspect – In their reports on the accident, the court-appointed experts had concluded that both the structure of the station and the manner in which it was run had failed to comply with minimum safety requirements. Although platforms connected by subways were obligatory under the regulations governing the organisation and management of stations, the station had no platforms. In addition, the victims’ train had stopped on a central track because the track adjacent to the station building was blocked by an immobilised goods train, so forcing the passengers to cross the track. Passengers on the train had not received any information or assistance from staff on board when getting off. The lighting had been insufficient and there had not been any staff to assist passengers in the station. In those circumstances, it could not be said that imprudent conduct on the part of the victims had been the decisive cause of the accident. Moreover, both the experts’ reports and the domestic courts’ findings in the compensation proceedings had established a causal link between the failure to comply with the safety regulations and the accident. In view of the significant number and seriousness of the breaches of the safety regulations in this case, the Court found that the authorities had failed to take the most elementary safety measures to protect life and could not validly claim negligence on the part of the victims. The State had thus failed in its positive obligation to implement regulations for the purpose of protecting the lives of passengers. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). (b)     Procedural aspect – The criminal-law remedies available in Turkey at the material time had been part of a system which, in theory, appeared sufficient to ensure the protection of the right to life in the context of hazardous activities. The question remained whether the measures taken in the Turkish criminal-justice system, following the railway accident in which the applicants’ relatives were killed, had been satisfactory in practice, taking into account the Convention requirements in such matters. In this connection, the investigating authorities had reacted speedily after the accident. The public prosecutor had opened a criminal investigation proprio motu and proceedings had been brought against the train driver for manslaughter. The trial had resulted in the train driver’s acquittal and the criminal court had then decided to refer the case to the public prosecutor’s office for a criminal investigation into the conduct of the TCDD, in view of the findings in the forensic institute’s report of non-compliance with safety regulations. However, the case file showed that the criminal court’s request had never been followed up: no such investigation or criminal proceedings were ever opened. The authorities thus did not seem to have paid due attention to the extremely serious consequences of the accident in which two people were killed. The manner in which the Turkish criminal-justice system had operated in response to the tragedy could not therefore be said to have secured the full accountability of State officials or authorities for their role in the accident or to have guaranteed the effective implementation of the provisions of domestic law ensuring respect for the right to life. Accordingly, there had also been a violation of Article   2 under its procedural head, on account of the lack of appropriate protection “by law” safeguarding the right to life and deterring similar life-endangering conduct in the future. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: Awards ranging from EUR   25,000 to EUR   35,000 for all heads of damage combined.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes