CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 7 mai 2003

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s18D96D33 { width:15.69pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sBF401EEE { width:32.35pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     245   7.5.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING ON THE MERITS IN THE CASE OF ÖNERYILDIZ v. TURKEY   Wednesday 7 May 2003 at 9.00 a.m.   The applicant   The application (no. 48939/99) was brought by Maşallah Öneryıldız, a Turkish national, who was born in 1955. At the material time he and the 12 members of his family were living in the slum area of Kazım Karabekir in Ümraniye (Istanbul).   Summary of the facts   The slum area of Kazım Karabekir was part of a collection of rudimentary dwellings built haphazardly 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 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 at 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 any of them had been concluded, a methane explosion occurred on 28 April 1993 at the waste-collection site and the refuse erupting from the pile of waste buried more than ten 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 tip destroyed and the latter for failing to rehabilitate the rubbish tip 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) each (the equivalent at the material time of approximately 9.7 euros (EUR) 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 decided to suspend the enforcement of those penalties.   Subsequently, the applicant, in his own name and on behalf of his three surviving children, brought 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 equivalent at the material time of approximately EUR   2,077 and 208 respectively), the latter amount being limited to the destruction of a certain type of household goods. Those amounts have not been paid to the applicant, however, as he does not appear to have brought enforcement proceedings.   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 Convention, and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property).   Procedure   The application was lodged on 18 January 1999 with the European Court of Human Rights and declared admissible on 22 May 2001.   In a Chamber judgment delivered on 18 June 2002 the European Court of Human Rights held by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the death of the applicant’s relatives and the ineffectiveness of the judicial machinery, and by four votes to three that there had been a violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court awarded the applicant EUR   154,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR   10,000 for costs and expenses.   The Government requested that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber (Article 43 of the Convention and Rule 73 of the Rules of Court) on 13 September 2002. The panel of the Grand Chamber accepted the request on 6 November 2002.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Luzius Wildhaber (Swiss), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Georg Ress (German), Nicolas Bratza (British), Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot) Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian) , Riza Türmen (Turkish) , Françoise Tulkens (Belgian) , Viera Strážnická (Slovakian) , Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian) , András Baka (Hungarian) , Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian) , Anatoli Kovler (Russian) , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), judges , Karel Jungwiert (Czech) , Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (Macedonian) , Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian) , substitute judges , and also Paul Mahoney , Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government:   Deniz Akçay , co-Agent , Yunus Belet, Gökşen Acar , Vedia Sirmen , Jale Kalay , Advisers ;   Applicant:   Esra Deniz , Counsel , Şeyhmus Özdemir , 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: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Joanna Reynell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (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.