CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 décembre 2006

.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 } .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. 92 December 2006 Paşa and Erkan Erol v. Turkey - 51358/99 Judgment 12.12.2006 [Section II] Article 2 Positive obligations Insufficient security measures around an area mined by the military and used by villagers as pasture land: violation   Article 34 Victim Complaint by mayor that the authorities had not taken the necessary security measures in his village to protect his son's life, although his administrative and parental responsibility was engaged in the accident in question: victim status rejected   Facts :     The authorities laid anti-personnel mines in order to protect the local gendarmerie close to a village. The area was surrounded by two rows of barbed wire at waist height and warning signs were erected at twenty-metre intervals. The villagers were informed of the danger in writing and then orally. The area in question was used as grazing land by the villagers. Nine-year-old Erkan Erol was tending sheep nearby and went after some sheep which had breached the barbed-wire fence to graze in the mined area; a mine exploded and he lost a leg. According to witnesses, Paşa Erol, the victim’s father and mayor of the village, used to enter the area with his animals without considering the consequences. Paşa Erol brought an action for damages against the State, alleging failure to take adequate safety measures around the military area. The action was dismissed on the ground that safety measures had been taken around the mined area and that the villagers, including the mayor, had been informed of the danger orally and in writing. According to the court, both the victim and his father had been responsible for the accident: the former, because he had entered a prohibited area and the latter through his own negligence. Law: Preliminary objection (lack of victim status of the first applicant) allowed . The first applicant, who was mayor of the village at the material time, should – given the nature of his duties and responsibilities – have warned the gendarmerie that the measures in place were inadequate and demanded that further protective measures be taken. However, he had not drawn the attention of the military authorities to the matters he later complained of before the Court. Moreover, he himself had behaved irresponsibly by entering the mined area prior to his son’s accident. Given his administrative and parental responsibility in relation to his son’s accident, he could not claim to be a victim, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of Article 2. Positive obligation on States to take all necessary measures to protect the lives of others : By laying mines on land used regularly as pasture land by the inhabitants of a village, where young children had gone regularly to graze their animals, and by simply surrounding the area with two rows of barbed wire which were too far apart to prevent children gaining access, the authorities had not taken the safety measures required to ensure protection from the risk of death or injury. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 30,505 for the damage sustained. For further details see press release no. 776.   © 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