The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5 January 2017 as a Chamber composed of: Paul Lemmens, Acting President, Işıl Karakaş, Valeriu Griţco, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Georges Ravarani, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 September 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Ms İmihan Öz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Malatya. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Eryaman, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3. On 13 March 2007 the applicant’s son Murat Öz, a construction worker, fell from a scaffold while working on a private construction site and died shortly afterwards as a result of...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 56995/10 İmihan ÖZ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5 January 2017 as a Chamber composed of: Paul Lemmens, Acting President, Işıl Karakaş, Valeriu Griţco, Ksenija Turković, Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, Georges Ravarani, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 September 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1. The applicant, Ms İmihan Öz, is a Turkish national who was born in 1960 and lives in Malatya. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Eryaman, a lawyer practising in Ankara. The circumstances of the case 2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3. On 13 March 2007 the applicant’s son Murat Öz, a construction worker, fell from a scaffold while working on a private construction site and died shortly afterwards as a result of the injuries he had sustained.
2 ÖZ v. TURKEY DECISION 1. Criminal proceedings concerning the incident 4. Right after the incident, an investigation into the death of the applicant’s son was initiated. Accordingly, a report on the scene of the incident was prepared, witnesses were interviewed and the applicant’s son’s employers were questioned as possible suspects. The Ankara public prosecutor’s office also commissioned an expert report to establish the causes of the applicant’s son’s death, in particular to determine whether his employers bore any responsibility for the fall. 5. The expert report submitted to the Ankara public prosecutor’s office on 21 March 2007 found that the applicant’s son had been primarily responsible for his fall, on account of his failure to take the necessary precautions to ensure his safety on the scaffold, which he would have been expected to do as an experienced construction worker. It added, however, that the construction site managers and the civil engineer in charge were also responsible for the accident, as they had not set up a system of checks to ensure work safety on the construction site, and had not provided the deceased with sufficient training on safety measures, contrary to the requirements of the relevant legislation. 6. On 22 March 2007 the Ankara public prosecutor’s office filed with the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance a bill of indictment against four people in charge of the construction site in question, for causing the applicant’s son’s death by negligence. The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party. 7. On an unspecified date the Ankara Criminal Court of First Instance appointed a panel of three experts, with a view to determining liability for the death of the applicant’ s son. The expert report submitted to the criminal court on 15 February 2009 found that the scaffold from which the applicant’s son had fallen had not been sufficiently secured, and this was the responsibility of the constructio...