Events
In 2004, a passenger train traveling from Haydarpaşa (Istanbul) to Ankara derailed near the district of Pamukova, resulting in the loss of many lives and numerous injuries. Among the deceased was the plaintiffs’ mother, F.Y. As part of the investigation launched by the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office in relation to the incident, a public case was brought before the high criminal court against the train conductor and the engineers (first and second engineer) who were found to be at fault in the accident, based on an expert report. As a result of the trial, the engineers were convicted, while the train conductor was acquitted.
The process, which began with the appeal of the initial conviction, lasted approximately 15 years and 5 months, including the reversal decision and the retrial based on this decision, and ended with the Supreme Court’s decision on December 25, 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. 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 enable trains to travel safely, that the necessary technical equipment is provided, and that the service continues safely in terms of people’s life safety and physical integrity. expert report indicated that certain deficiencies in the railway superstructure and the lack of technical equipment to safely control speed changes on the train were significant contributing factors to the accident. The application file does not contain any evidence to suggest that the findings in this report, which was prepared by expert scientists based on investigations conducted at the scene of the accident, are incorrect.
The Constitutional Court concluded that, in the train accident that is 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 obligations to eliminate the risks to life and physical integrity arising from a dangerous activity such as railway transportation.
For 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 application is an extremely serious incident in which 38 people lost their lives and more than 80 were injured. While the obligation to conduct an effective investigation does not confer the right to prosecute or punish third parties for a crime or to ensure that all cases result in convictions, it is critical to ensure that those found responsible in the judicial process are not left unpunished, to preserve faith in the rule of law, and to avoid giving the impression that unlawful acts are tolerated or ignored.
It is evident that evidence was gathered quickly in the investigation launched immediately after the accident in question, the circumstances surrounding the incident were uncovered, and those responsible were identified. On the other hand, no criminal proceedings were initiated against public officials who were deemed negligent in providing the necessary infrastructure, technical equipment, and supervision for the safe operation of the railway. The criminal case filed against the train drivers, whose negligence and responsibility were accepted by all judicial bodies involved in the trial process, was dismissed due to the statute of limitations. As a result, in an incident with such serious consequences, although negligence was identified by expert reports, the judicial authorities did not definitively establish criminal liability.
In this case, while it cannot be said that the judicial system fulfilled its deterrent role in preventing violations of the right to life, the intervention by the competent authorities was deemed insufficient given the seriousness of the incident.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the procedural aspect of the right to life had been violated for the reasons stated.