CASE OF SİNİM v. TURKEY
Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Ledi Bianku;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström
5. The applicant was born in 1979 and lives in Istanbul. 6. The applicant’s husband, Ali Sinim, entered into an agreement with a truck owner, Mr A.S., for the transportation of some personal goods and furniture from Istanbul to Antalya on 5 August 2006. According to the applicant’s allegations, her husband was informed that the truck in question had been booked by a transport company for the same day and that it would also be carrying some raw materials belonging to another client. 7. On the date in question the applicant’s husband loaded his goods into the truck and got into it as a passenger. However, before reaching its destination the truck collided with another vehicle and caught fire. The truck’s driver and substitute driver died at the scene of the accident as a result of the fire. The applicant’s husband died a few days later at the hospital where he had been receiving treatment for his burns. 8. It was discovered after the accident that the “raw materials” being transported in the truck with the applicant’s husband’s goods were in fact an inflammable liquid, which had caught fire upon impact. According to the police scene-of-incident report, the containers that had contained the spilt inflammable liquid bore the words “Şenocak chafing fuel”. 9. An autopsy report issued on 31 January 2007 by the Forensic Medicine Institute stated that the applicant’s husband had died as a result of the burns he had sustained at the time of the accident rather than from trauma caused by the impact of the crash. 10. According to the initial report prepared by the traffic police at the scene, the driver of the truck, whose identity could not be established at the time, bore the main responsibility for the accident as he had hit the other vehicle, driven by S.S.H., from behind. 11. On 5 August 2006 officers from Sultanbeyli police station took statements from the applicant, S.S.H. and the owner of the truck, A.S., who was also the son of one of the truck drivers, M.S. A.S. confirmed in his statement that he was the owner of the truck, which his father M.S. had loaded with goods to be transported to Antalya. He stated that a third person, namely A.Ç., had also been in the truck to help his father during the journey. He was not asked any questions about the nature of the goods transported. 12. On 4 September 2006 the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor’s office against A.S., S.S.H, and the transport company to which the truck had been leased, if any, for causing her husband’s death by illegally carrying dangerous inflammable goods. The applicant stressed in her complaint that the incident in question had not been a simple traffic accident caused by negligence, and that her husband had lost his life because of the inflammable goods that had been loaded unlawfully in the truck without his knowledge and consent. The applicant argued that if her husband had been properly informed of the nature of the truck’s cargo, he would never have agreed to travel in it. The applicant therefore requested the identification of all the individuals or companies who may have been responsible for her husband’s death, including the transporter, the seller and the buyer of the inflammable goods. She also requested to be informed of developments in the investigation as she intended to join the proceedings as a civil party (müdahil). 13. On 9 November 2006 A.S. submitted a petition to the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor’s office for an investigation into the liability for the accident of both the transport company which had leased his truck and of the seller and buyer of the inflammable cargo, whom he accused of concealing the dangerous nature of the goods in question. As evidence, he submitted the invoice and delivery note (sevk irsaliyesi) prepared on 4 August 2006 by the transport company Salihli Nakliyat Otom. Ltd. Şti. (“Salihli Ltd. Şti.”) for the recipient, Şenocak Dış Ticaret ve Turizm Sanayi Ltd. Şti. (“Şenocak Ltd. Şti.”), where the shipment was described as “raw materials” without any further details. A.S. stated that if it had been made clear that the goods involved were inflammable then they would have been transported in accordance with the conditions set out in the law, which might have prevented the fatal accident. 14. On 28 November 2006 the applicant filed an additional complaint against the producer of the inflammable liquid, which she had identified as Şenocak Ltd. Şti. based on the information provided in the scene-of-incident report (see paragraph 8 above). The applicant claimed that the liquid in question contained ethanol and methanol, which had both been classified as “hazardous goods subject to control” in the Regulation on Dangerous Goods and the Regulation on the Transport by Land of Dangerous Goods, and which accordingly had to be packed, labelled, stored and transported in compliance with the strict requirements set down in those regulations. Moreover, under the Regulation on the Transport by Land of Dangerous Goods, it was prohibited to carry passengers, apart from a substitute driver and a guard, in vehicles transporting dangerous goods. Having regard to the various responsibilities imposed by the relevant legislation on the producer, seller, transporter and buyer of such goods, the applicant requested that the public prosecutor (i) check if Şenocak Ltd. Şti. was the producer and whether it also engaged in the distribution of such material; (ii) establish whether the truck in question had been leased by a transport company or by Şenocak Ltd. Şti. itself and whether it had a licence to carry such dangerous goods; and (iii) identify the buyer of the goods. She also repeated her request to be informed of developments in the investigation. 15. On 6 May 2007, at the request of the Sultanbeyli prosecutor, a traffic engineer submitted an expert report, where it was found that the deceased truck driver M.S. had been responsible for the accident by failing to comply with the law applying to vehicles carrying inflammable goods on keeping a distance of fifty metres. The expert found that S.S.H., the driver of the other vehicle, had not been at fault. 16. Relying mainly on the expert report, on 7 May 2007 the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor found that the only person responsible for the accident within the meaning of Article 85 of the Turkish Criminal Code (causing death by negligence – see paragraph 46 below) was M.S. However, since M.S. had also lost his life in the accident, the public prosecutor decided against prosecution. A.S. was listed as the sole complainant in the decision, which was not notified to the applicant. 17. After finding out about the decision on her own initiative, on 29 June 2007 the applicant objected to the public prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute, arguing mainly that the issues she had raised in her petitions of 4 September and 28 November 2006 had not been taken into account by the public prosecutor. She reiterated that her husband had not been informed that the truck was carrying inflammable liquids, and also argued that the prosecutor had failed to identify the companies involved in the shipment of such dangerous goods, including the seller, buyer and transport company, and had not established the relations of the truck owner, A.S., to those companies. She argued that it was of the utmost importance to collect that information in order to establish the facts and to identify those responsible for the accident, apart from the driver of the truck. She added that despite the numerous complaints she had lodged with the public prosecutor’s office and her requests to be informed of developments in the investigation, she had not been named as a complainant in the public prosecutor’s decision and the decision had not been notified to her. 18. It appears that A.S., as the other complainant, did not lodge an objection against the public prosecutor’s decision. 19. On 4 September 2007 the Kadıköy Assize Court rejected the objection against the decision of the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor not to prosecute M.S. and S.S.H. It held, nevertheless, that complaints lodged by A.S. against Salihli Ltd. Şti. and Şenocak Ltd. Şti. had remained unanswered and instructed the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor to investigate their liability for the accident. A.S. was once again listed as the sole complainant in the decision, which was not notified to the applicant. 20. On 6 December 2007 the applicant submitted a petition to the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor’s office, asking it to investigate the matters raised in her previous petitions. The applicant also stressed that despite her numerous requests, she had, once again, not been recognised as a complainant in the Kadıköy Assize Court’s decision. 21. It appears that on 22 January 2008 an agent of the transport company Salihli Ltd. Şti., a certain B.T., was questioned about the accident for the first time by the police. B.T. stated that Şenocak Ltd. Şti. had requested a truck from them to transport some goods. The company had, however, put Şenocak Ltd. Şti. in touch with A.S., who provided transportation services with his truck upon request, and they had had no further involvement with the shipment in question. 22. In a further petition submitted by the applicant to the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor’s office on 23 May 2008, she expressed her concern that the investigation after the Kadıköy Assize Court’s decision had appeared to focus solely on the liability of the transport company Salihli Ltd. Şti., whereas both Şenocak Ltd. Şti., as the producer and/or the shipper of the goods, and A.S., as the owner of the truck, also bore responsibility for the accident on account of their failure to comply with the relevant legislation on the transport of dangerous goods. 23. On an unspecified date the Sultanbeyli public prosecutor asked the traffic branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute to prepare a report to determine the respective liability of Salihli Ltd. Şti. and Şenocak Ltd. Şti., or any others, for the accident in question. In its response dated 10 July 2008 the Forensic Medicine Institute stated that there was no information in the case file on Şenocak Ltd. Şti. and that, in the absence of such information, it could not report on the requested matters. 24. On 15 October 2008 S.Ş., the owner of Şenocak Ltd. Şti., was questioned about the accident for the first time by the police. S.Ş. stated that he had requested a truck from Salihli Ltd. Şti. to send goods to his company’s Antalya branch. A truck owned by A.S. had been provided to him by Salihli Ltd. Şti. and he had loaded it with the goods in question. He confirmed that the truck had been involved in an accident shortly after loading and that it and his goods had been destroyed in a fire. 25. Following the receipt of the above information, on 19 February 2009 the Forensic Medicine Institute submitted its report on the accident. It found that there was no information in the file that the truck in question had been loaded with inflammable goods by Şenocak Ltd. Şti. There was, furthermore, no information on the identity of the recipient of the shipment. Although containers bearing the name “Şenocak” had been found in the truck after the accident, there was no other evidence in the file to enable the Institute to determine who had loaded the truck. In those circumstances, it had not been possible to establish the liability of Şenocak Ltd. Şti., Salihli Ltd. Şti., or anyone else for the accident. 26. On 8 May 2009 the applicant submitted objections to the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report. She contested the finding that there had been no evidence to suggest the involvement of Şenocak Ltd. Şti. with the shipment in question. She argued that the owner of Şenocak Ltd. Şti. had made it clear in his police statement that the truck had been loaded with his company’s goods, which had consisted of chafing fuel. Moreover, in response to the compensation request she had made to the Sultanbeyli Civil Court of First Instance (see below paragraph 30 for further details), the owner of Şenocak Ltd. Şti. had stated, inter alia, that he had also suffered a loss as a result of the accident as he had lost all of his merchandise. A representative of Salihli Ltd. Şti. had similarly told the Sultanbeyli Civil Court of First Instance that the truck involved in the accident had been sent to Şenocak Ltd. Şti. for loading, accompanied by a delivery note prepared by them on 4 August 2006. In the applicant’s opinion, those statements provided sufficient proof that the inflammable goods loaded in the truck had belonged to Şenocak Ltd. Şti. On the basis of that information, and having regard to the legal requirements in the relevant legislation on the packaging, labelling, storing and transportation of inflammable goods, none of which had been observed in the instant case, it was clear that both Şenocak Ltd. Şti. and Salihli Şti., as well as the owner and driver of the truck, had been responsible for the accident. 27. On 25 May 2009 the Sultanbeyli prosecutor decided not to prosecute representatives of Salihli Ltd. Şti. and Şenocak Ltd. Şti. on the basis of the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report of 10 July 2008. In the decision, the public prosecutor did not respond to any of the applicant’s allegations. 28. On 17 June 2009 the applicant objected to that decision. Reiterating mainly the arguments she had raised in her objection to the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report, she submitted that the public prosecutor had failed to establish the facts of the case and had disregarded essential evidence in the investigation file which pointed to the representatives of Salihli Ltd. Şti. and Şenocak Ltd. Şti, A.S. and the deceased driver of the truck as being criminally liable for the accident. 29. On 23 July 2009 the Kadıköy Assize Court rejected the applicant’s objection, without responding to any of her arguments. 30. On 16 July 2007 the applicant brought an action for compensation before the Sultanbeyli Civil Court of First Instance against Şenocak Ltd. Şti., Salihli Ltd. Şti, the owner of the truck, A.S., the heirs of both dead truck drivers, and an insurance company. Reiterating the legal requirements for the packaging, labelling, storage and transportation of dangerous goods that she had referred to during the criminal proceedings, the applicant argued that the defendants had caused her husband’s death by their failure to comply with the relevant legislation. 31. On unspecified dates, representatives of Salihli Ltd. Şti. and Şenocak Ltd. Şti. responded to the applicant’s allegations, as noted in paragraph 26 above. 32. At the request of the Sultanbeyli Civil Court of First Instance, on 19 March 2012 three experts from the traffic branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute submitted a report (“the first report”) on the defendants’ liability for the accident in question, where they made the following findings: - Şenocak Ltd. Şti., which was the producer of the inflammable goods in question, had requested Salihli Ltd. Şti.’s services for the transportation of merchandise from its headquarters in Istanbul to its Antalya office; - Salihli Ltd. Şti. had subcontracted A.S. for the business; - in the consignment note it had prepared, Şenocak Ltd. Şti. had described the consignment as sixteen tonnes of raw material, without indicating that it consisted of inflammable goods; - the fire that had broken out upon impact with S.S.H.’s vehicle and that had claimed the applicant’s husband’s life had been caused by the inflammable goods loaded in the truck; - Şenocak Ltd. Şti. was liable for the accident because it had failed to comply with the consignor’s obligations set out in the relevant legislation; - Salihli Ltd. Şti. and A.S. were liable on account of their failure to pay heed to the type of raw material they had accepted, which had resulted in the transportation of dangerous goods in a truck which had not fulfilled the relevant criteria for such transportation; - A.S. was also liable for having unlawfully loaded other goods in the truck and accepting a passenger (the applicant’s husband); - the driver of the truck was liable owing to his failure to drive with care. In the light of those considerations, the Forensic Medicine Institute found that Şenocak Ltd. Şti. bore 40% of the liability for the accident, Salihli Ltd. Şti. and A.S. bore 20% each, while the remaining liability lay with the driver. 33. On 18 October 2012 Salihli Ltd. Şti. objected to the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report. 34. Following that objection, seven experts from the traffic branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute, including the three experts who had prepared the previous report, issued another report on 18 September 2013 (“the second report”). They found that while Salihli Ltd. Şti., Şenocak Ltd. Şti. and A.S. may all have disregarded their legal obligations on the transport of dangerous goods, the accident had been caused by the driver’s carelessness rather than the other defendants’ failure to comply with those obligations. They could not therefore be held accountable for the accident in any way. 35. On 19 November 2013 the applicant objected to the Forensic Medicine Institute’s report, which in her opinion conflicted with its previous report of 19 March 2012. The applicant reiterated that her husband had not died as a result of a simple traffic accident, but had burned to death because of the inflammable goods carried unlawfully in the truck, for which all the defendants bore responsibility. The applicant requested that the Sultanbeyli Civil Court of First Instance obtain a third report from independent experts to resolve the contradictions between the two reports prepared by the Forensic Medicine Institute. 36. At a hearing held on 29 April 2014, the civil court of first instance appointed a group of experts, consisting of a mechanical engineer and two professors of mechanical engineering and chemistry from Istanbul Technical University. The court asked them to comment on the contradictions between the two Forensic Medicine Institute reports and to state which report they agreed with. 37. In their report dated 13 November 2014 (“the third report”), the experts established at the outset that the action brought by the applicant concerned the death of her husband as a result of the burns he had sustained because of the fire caused by the accident. The examination in the instant case therefore had to focus not on the technical cause of the accident per se, which was what the second report had done, but on the reasons and the responsibility for the fire that had claimed her husband’s life. The experts stated in that connection that the fire had been caused by chafing fuel, which was a “highly inflammable liquid”, according to the Regulation on the Transport by Land of Dangerous Goods and which therefore had to be transported in accordance with the relevant legislation concerning the transportation of such dangerous substances. The truck in which the chafing fuel had been loaded in the instant case had, however, not been suitable for the transportation of dangerous goods: it had not been equipped with an electrical system to prevent short circuits and fire; it had had no warning signs; and the driver had not been trained in the transportation of such goods. Şenocak Ltd. Şti., as the producer of the chafing fuel, bore the principal liability (40%) for the fire on account of its failure to ensure the safe transportation of its merchandise in accordance with the relevant legal requirements. Salihli Ltd. Şti., which had procured the truck in question, and A.S., the owner and operator of the truck, were each 20% liable for agreeing to transport such dangerous goods in a vehicle unfit for the job. A.S. was further liable because he had accepted additional cargo in the truck. The remaining responsibility lay with the deceased driver, who had not kept a safe distance from the vehicle in front. On the basis of those findings, the experts stated that they agreed with the first report’s conclusions. 38. At a hearing held on 7 October 2015 the civil court of first instance decided to appoint an expert to calculate the applicant’s pecuniary damage, on the basis of the findings of the third report of 13 November 2014. 39. In a report dated 19 November 2015 the expert calculated the applicant’s pecuniary damage as 229,613 Turkish liras (TRY) (approximately 75,145 euros (EUR) at the material time). 40. According to the latest information in the case file, the compensation proceedings are still ongoing in the court of first instance.