Events
A passenger train travelling between Haydarpaşa (İstanbul)-Ankara derailed in 2004 near Pamukova district, killing many people and injuring many others. The applicants’ mother, F.Y., was among the deceased. During the investigation initiated by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office, a public prosecution was initiated at the heavy criminal court against the engineers (first and second engineer) and the train conductor, who were found to be at fault for the accident by an expert report. As a result of the trial, a judgement of conviction was given for the engineers and a judgement of acquittal was given for the train conductor.
The process, which started with the appeal of the first conviction verdict, lasted approximately 15 years and 5 months with the reversal decision and the retrials following this decision, and concluded with the decision of the Supreme Court on 25/12/2019 to dismiss the public cases against the defendants due to statute of limitations.
Allegations
The applicants claimed that the right to life was violated due to the death caused by the derailment of a passenger train.
The Court’s Assessment
1. Regarding the Allegation of Violation of the Material Aspect of the Right to Life
The obligation to protect life is a positive obligation. Making deterrent legal and administrative arrangements against threats and risks to the right to life is one of the important elements of this obligation.
It is indisputable that structuring the railway superstructure in such a way that trains can travel safely, providing the necessary technical equipment and ensuring the continuation of the service in a safe manner in terms of the life and physical integrity of persons through supervision are services that must be performed by the competent public authorities. Some deficiencies in the railway superstructure and the lack of technical equipment to ensure a safe change of speed on the train were included in the expert report as important factors causing the accident. There is nothing in the application file to indicate that the findings in this report, which is based on examinations made at the scene of the accident and prepared by expert scientists, are not correct.
The Constitutional Court concluded that in the train accident subject to the concrete application, it cannot be said that the competent authorities took the necessary and sufficient measures within the scope of their positive obligation to eliminate the risks to life and physical integrity arising from a dangerous activity such as railway transport.
For the reasons explained, it has been decided that the substantive dimension of the right to life has been violated.
2. Regarding the Allegation of Violation of the Procedural Aspect of the Right to Life
The train accident subject to the present application is an extremely grave incident in which 38 people died and more than 80 people were injured. Although the obligation to conduct an effective investigation does not give the right to prosecute or punish third parties for a judicial offence or to conclude all proceedings with a conviction, it is of critical importance in order to ensure that persons whose responsibility is established as a result of judicial processes are not left unpunished, to protect the belief in the rule of law and not to give the appearance of tolerance or indifference to unlawful acts.
It is observed that in the investigation initiated immediately after the accident subject to the application, the evidence was collected rapidly, the conditions under which the incident occurred were revealed and those responsible were identified. On the other hand, there is no criminal case against public officials who are considered to be at fault in providing the necessary superstructure, technical equipment and supervision for the safe operation of the railway. The criminal case against the engineers, whose fault and responsibility were accepted by all judicial bodies involved in the judicial process, was dropped due to statute of limitations. As a result, in an incident with such grave consequences, there is no one whose criminal responsibility has been definitively decided by the judicial bodies, although their fault has been determined by expert reports.
In this case, it cannot be said that the judicial system fulfilled its deterrent role in preventing violations of the right to life, and the degree of reaction shown by the competent authorities in the face of the seriousness of the incident was not sufficient.
For the reasons explained above, the Constitutional Court decided that the procedural aspect of the right to life was violated.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.