## Facts

- Maşallah Öneryıldız lived with extended family in a gecekondu (informal settlement) in Ümraniye, Istanbul, directly below a municipal rubbish tip used by multiple districts and operated under public authority.
- A report prepared for local authorities (early 1990s) found the dump was not compliant with domestic rules and warned of serious hazards, including gases from decomposing refuse and the risk of explosion; the authorities were put on notice that preventive measures were needed.
- Local bodies took some steps reflecting awareness of the danger (including efforts connected to limiting use of the site), but the dump continued to operate near homes, and residents were not effectively protected from the known risks.
- On 28 April 1993, methane at the tip exploded and triggered a large slide of refuse that engulfed houses below the site, including the applicant’s dwelling.
- Thirty-nine people died; nine were close relatives of the applicant who lived with him.
- Domestic authorities opened investigations and obtained technical reports after the disaster.
- Criminal proceedings were brought against public officials (including local mayors). The officials were convicted of negligence in performing their duties, but the penalties imposed were minimal (suspended fines), resulting in limited practical accountability.
- The Istanbul Administrative Court found a direct causal link between the accident and administrative negligence and awarded damages for certain losses; however, payment was not made in practice, and compensation was refused for destruction of the house and household items.
- The applicant was later offered rehousing on subsidized terms, but this did not fully address the loss of life and the property damage or the lack of payment of the court-awarded sums.

## Issues

1. Whether Article 2 (right to life) required Turkey to take preventive measures in relation to a dangerous public service (operation of a municipal rubbish tip) where authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to nearby residents.
2. Whether Article 2’s procedural obligations were satisfied by the post-incident response, including the effectiveness of investigations, prosecutions, and sanctions against responsible officials.
3. Whether the applicant’s dwelling and the land he occupied constituted “possessions” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and whether Turkey failed to take reasonable measures to protect those possessions and to provide effective compensation.
4. Whether Article 13 was violated because domestic remedies did not provide effective redress in practice for the deaths and property destruction caused by the hazardous activity.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber held that Turkey violated Article 2 in its substantive aspect because the authorities knew or ought to have known of a real and immediate risk to life from the operation of the dump and failed to take appropriate preventive measures and safeguards.
- The Court held that Turkey violated Article 2 in its procedural aspect because the domestic response did not provide an effective judicial mechanism capable of ensuring real accountability and deterrent consequences, given the limited nature of the sanctions imposed.
- The Court held that Turkey violated Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 because the applicant’s home/occupancy qualified as possessions and the State failed both to protect them from a known danger linked to a publicly run installation and to secure effective compensation (including non-payment and refusal to compensate key property losses).
- The Court held that Turkey violated Article 13 because the applicant did not have an effective remedy in practice capable of establishing responsibility and obtaining adequate redress for the life-threatening hazardous activity and its consequences.
- The Court did not consider it necessary to examine certain other complaints separately in light of its findings under Articles 2 and 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

## Legal Principles

- Article 2 imposes positive duties to take appropriate steps to safeguard life, including in the context of dangerous activities and public services such as municipal waste management.
- States must put in place and apply a legislative and administrative framework for hazardous activities, including supervision and safety measures designed to reduce risks to life.
- Where authorities know or ought to know of a real and immediate risk to life affecting identifiable individuals or a group, they must take measures within their powers which, judged reasonably, could be expected to avoid or reduce that risk.
- Article 2 also has a procedural requirement: when loss of life may engage State responsibility, there must be an effective judicial response capable of determining responsibility and providing meaningful accountability; token or non-deterrent sanctions may fail this standard.
- Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 can require positive measures to protect possessions from known dangers connected to State-run or State-controlled activities; long-standing possession and official tolerance may bring even informal housing interests within the protection of that provision.
- Article 13 requires a remedy that works in practice, not merely on paper; remedies may be ineffective where compensation is refused for core losses, awarded sums are not paid, or proceedings do not deliver adequate accountability.

## Conclusion

Öneryıldız v. Turkey held that a State that operates or controls a dangerous waste site must take reasonable preventive measures when warned of a serious risk to nearby residents, and must also ensure an effective legal response after a fatal incident through meaningful sanctions and practical compensation; Turkey’s failures before and after the Ümraniye dump explosion resulted in violations of Articles 2 and 13 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.


Öneryildiz v. Turkey, App. No. 48939/99, ECHR 2004-XII, (2005) 41 Eur. Ct. H.R. 20 (2004)