Incidents
In 2004, a passenger train traveling from Haydarpaşa (Istanbul) to Ankara derailed near the district of Pamukova, resulting in the deaths of many people and injuries to many others. Among the deceased was the mother of the applicants, F.Y. In the investigation launched by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office in connection with the incident, a public case was brought before the high criminal court against the train chief, along with the engineers (first and second engineer) who were found to be at fault in the accident by an expert report. As a result of the trial, the engineers were convicted, while the train chief was acquitted.
The process, which began with the appeal of the initial conviction, lasted approximately 15 years and 5 months with the reversal decision and the retrials conducted upon this decision, and ended with the Court of Cassation’s decision on 25/12/2019 to dismiss the public cases against the defendants due to the statute of limitations.
Allegations
The applicants claimed that their right to life had been violated as a result of the deaths caused by the derailment of the passenger train.
The Court’s Assessment
1. Regarding the Allegation of Violation of the Substantive Dimension of the Right to Life
The obligation to protect life is a positive obligation. One of the important elements of this obligation is the implementation of deterrent legal and administrative regulations against threats and risks that may affect the right to life.
It is indisputable that the competent public authorities are responsible for ensuring that the railway superstructure is designed to allow trains to travel safely, that the necessary technical equipment is provided, and that the service continues safely in terms of people’s lives and physical integrity through supervision. Certain deficiencies in the railway superstructure and the lack of technical equipment to safely control speed changes on the train were cited in the expert report as significant factors contributing to the accident. There is no element in the application file indicating that the findings in this report, which is based on investigations conducted at the scene and prepared by expert scientists, are incorrect.
The Constitutional Court concluded that in the train accident that was the subject of 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 transportation.
Based on the reasons explained, it was decided that the material dimension of the right to life had been violated.
2. Allegation of Violation of the Procedural Dimension of the Right to Life
The train accident that is the subject of the specific application is an extremely serious incident in which 38 people died and more than 80 were injured. Although the obligation to conduct an effective investigation does not confer the right to prosecute or punish third parties for a criminal offense or to ensure that all trials result in convictions, it is of critical importance that those whose responsibility is established as a result of judicial proceedings are not left unpunished, is critical in order to preserve faith in the rule of law and to avoid giving the impression that unlawful acts are tolerated or ignored.
It is seen that in the investigation immediately launched after the accident that is the subject of the application, evidence was gathered quickly, the circumstances in 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 have been negligent in providing the necessary infrastructure, technical equipment, and supervision for the safe operation of the railway. The criminal case against the train drivers, whose negligence and responsibility were accepted by all judicial units involved in the judicial process, has been dismissed due to the statute of limitations. Ultimately, in an incident with such grave consequences, no one has been definitively found criminally responsible by the judicial authorities, despite their negligence being established 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 it has been assessed that the response shown by the competent authorities was insufficient given the seriousness of the incident.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the procedural dimension of the right to life had been violated based on the reasons stated.
