Events
As a result of the derailment of the passenger train making the Haydarpaşa (Istanbul)-Ankara voyage near Pamukova district of Sakarya in 2004, many people died and many were injured. Among the dead, the applicant’s wife at that time, H.T. and H.T.’s brother A.T. and A.T.’s children N.T. with M.T. are also available.
An investigation has been initiated by the Sakarya Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (Public Prosecutor’s Office) regarding the incident, and an expert report has been received regarding the cause of the incident and the fault situation. The Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor gave a decision of lack of jurisdiction in the investigation it carried out against the officials of the General Directorate of Turkish State Railways (TCDD), and sent the investigation documents to the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office. The result of this investigation could not be determined.
On the other hand, the Office of the Chief Public Prosecutor filed a civil lawsuit in the Heavy Penal Court against the drivers (first and second driver) and the train conductor, alleging causing an accident on the railway. As a result of the trial, the drivers were sentenced and the train conductor was acquitted.
Upon the appeal of the judgment by the parties, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the defendants. In the trial held after the decision to overturn, it was decided to drop the cases. Upon the appeal of this decision, the judgment was overturned, the first driver was sentenced to prison in the trial, and the second driver’s sentence was postponed.
The decision appealed by the parties was overturned by the Supreme Court. Complying with the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the Heavy Penal Court decided to punish the drivers with judicial fines and postponed the judicial fines by dividing them into installments. After the appeal of the decision by the parties, the Court of Cassation decided to drop the public cases against the defendants on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired.
allegations
The applicant claimed that his right to life was violated due to the ineffectiveness of the criminal proceedings against some public officials, based on the fact that a passenger train derailed and caused many deaths and many injuries.
Court’s Evaluation
Pursuant to the procedural aspect of the positive obligations imposed on it by Article 17 of the Constitution, the state should conduct an independent investigation that allows for all aspects of every suspicious death to be revealed, the persons responsible to be identified and, if necessary, to punish these persons.
However, the obligation to investigate effectively is not an obligation of results, but of the use of appropriate means. Article 17 of the Constitution does not give the applicants the right to prosecute or punish third parties for a crime, nor does it impose a duty on the state to conclude all proceedings with convictions.
When the proceedings made during the proceedings and the claims of the applicant are evaluated together, the issue to be examined in the application is whether the proceedings were carried out with reasonable speed and care.
Burcu Demirkaya and Yücel Demirkaya (App. No: 2015/1232, 30/10/2018) It is understandable that it takes a long time to determine the statements of the relatives of the deceased and the injured due to the excess of those who died and were injured in the incident that occurred in the application, but that no element in the trial justifies the inability to conclude the trial. It was decided that the procedural aspect of the right to life was violated because the proceedings were not conducted in a reasonable speed. After the date of the aforementioned decision, the trial continued for another 10 months and 25 days, and finally, the public action against the defendants was time-barred. Considering the actions taken throughout the trial and the contents of the annulment decisions, the reason for the dismissal of the case due to the statute of limitations is that the case was left on hold. In this respect, it cannot be said that the proceedings subject to the application were carried out with reasonable care and speed.
On the grounds of the Constitutional Court, H.T. decided that the procedural aspect of the right to life had been violated in the application.