Individual Application

The Facts

Some non-governmental organisations decided to hold a rally for peace, labour and democracy in Ankara on Saturday, 10 October 2015, between 12 pm and 4 pm, after obtaining the necessary legal permits. While the crowd gathered in front of Ankara Railway Station on 10 October 2015 was preparing for the rally, two explosions occurred one after the other at around 10:04 am, killing many people and injuring many others.

The applicant claimed that the administration was guilty of dereliction of duty by failing to take sufficient measures on the day of the incident, despite the information received prior to the bombing, and that his mental integrity had been destroyed by his presence at the scene of the incident and the events he had witnessed, and brought a full remedy action for non-pecuniary damages. The court dismissed the case and the applicant’s subsequent appeal was rejected by the Regional Administrative Court.

The Applicant’s Allegations

The applicant claimed that the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings had been violated by the weakening of procedural safeguards in his action for compensation for non-pecuniary damage caused by the terrorist attack.

The Court’s Assessment

In the present case, the Court made some enquiries as to whether the applicant had been present at the scene of the incident and reached a conclusion based on the information provided by the administrative authorities. In addition, the Court asked the administration to determine whether the applicant had been present at the scene of the incident by analysing data such as photographs, videos, official minutes, hospital, police and prosecution records, footage obtained from MOBESE (Mobile Electronic System Integration) surveillance cameras and HTS (Historical Traffic Search) records, but the administration indicated that there was no record of the applicant’s name and injury in the investigation initiated into the incident. In this context, it has been considered that the public authorities failed to sufficiently investigate whether the applicant had been present at the scene of the incident.

It has also been noted that there was no examination and evaluation of the photographs which the applicant claimed to have taken at the scene of the incident, that his claim that he had signed his friend’s autopsy report was not investigated and that all these issues were not discussed in the decision. In addition, the treatment records relating to the medical report submitted by the applicant were not subpoenaed and it was not investigated whether the medical diagnosis in the report was medically established to be related to the explosion incident. In this case, it is clear that the evidence, which would clearly have an impact on the merits of the case, was neither examined by the lower court nor taken into account in the assessment of the conclusion.

The applicant raised allegations of dereliction of duty, stressing that the respondent administration had not taken the necessary measures and that the interventions of the security forces after the explosions had aggravated the consequences of the attack, but the judicial authorities had not carried out any investigation and assessment in relation to the applicant’s allegations. In the present case, the conclusion that there was no causal link between the explosion and the psychological distress suffered by the applicant was not based on an investigation and assessment appropriate to the present case.

Therefore, in assessing the judicial process as a whole, it has been noted that the judicial authorities did not carry out sufficient investigation and research into the allegations made by the applicant in his action for damages and that evidence affecting the merits of the case was excluded from the assessment. The fact that the court did not carry out any investigation and assessment of the applicant’s allegations which could have affected the conclusion of the judgment, and that the judgment was rendered by giving precedence to the administration’s account of how the incident occurred, resulted in the applicant being placed in a weak position in relation to the respondent administration. This procedural defect could not be remedied by the Regional Administrative Court on the applicant’s appeal. This situation therefore affected the fairness of the judicial process as a whole.

Consequently, the Court has found violations of the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings.