CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 16 octobre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD35C6159 { width:1.54pt; display:inline-block } .s38DD6A04 { width:18.2pt; display:inline-block } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     736   16.10.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   HEARING IN THE CASE OF ÖNERYILDIZ v. TURKEY   Tuesday 16 October 2001 at 9.30 a.m.   The applicant   The applicant, Maşallah Öneryıldız, is a Turkish national who was born in 1955. At the material time he and the twelve members of his family were living in the shanty town of Hekimbaşı Ümraniye (Istanbul).   Summary of the facts   The shanty town of Hekimbaşı comprised a collection of slums haphazardly built on land surrounding a rubbish tip which had been used jointly by four district councils since the 1970s and was under the authority and responsibility of the main City Council of Istanbul. An expert’s report drawn up on 7 May 1991 at the request of the Üsküdar District Court, to which the case had been referred by the Ümraniye District Council, drew the authorities’ attention to, among other things, the fact that no measure had been taken with regard to the tip in question to prevent a possible explosion of the methane gas being given off by the decomposing refuse. The report gave rise to a series of disputes between the mayors concerned. Before the proceedings instituted by either of them had been concluded, a methane gas explosion occurred on 28 April 1993 on the waste collection site and the refuse erupting from the pile of waste buried eleven houses situated below it, including the one belonging to the applicant, who lost nine members of his family.   Criminal and administrative investigations were carried out into the case, following which the mayors of Ümraniye and Istanbul were brought before the courts, the former for failing to comply with his duty to have the illegal huts surrounding the said tip destroyed and the latter for failing to make the rubbish tip safe or order its closure, despite the conclusions of the expert’s report of 7 May 1991. On 4 April 1996 the mayors in question were both convicted of “negligence in the exercise of their duties” and sentenced to a fine of 160,000 Turkish liras (“TRL”) and the minimum three-month prison sentence provided for in Article 230 of the Criminal Code, which was, moreover, commuted to a fine. The court ordered a stay of execution of those fines.   Subsequently, the applicant lodged, on his own behalf and on the behalf of his three surviving children, an action for damages in the Istanbul Administrative Court against the authorities which he deemed liable for the death of his relatives and the destruction of his property. In a judgment of 30 November 1995, the authorities were ordered to pay the applicant and his children TRL 100,000,000 in non-pecuniary damages and TRL 10,000,000 in pecuniary damages, the latter amount being limited to the destruction of household goods.     Complaints   The applicant alleged that the facts complained of in the present case amounted to a violation of Articles 2 (right to life), 13 (right to an effective remedy), 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention Human Rights, and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Procedure   The application was lodged on 18 January 1999 and declared admissible on 22 May 2001 by the First Section of the Court.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), judges , Luigi Ferrari Bravo [1] (Italian), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), substitute judges ,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Deniz Akçay , Co-Agent ; Gökşen Acar, Selman Karakul , Advisers ;   Applicant:   Esra Deniz ; Counsel . Şeyhmus Acar , Adviser .   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date.   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Judge elected in respect of San Marino.