I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in IŞGıN v. TURKEY.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2022-10-04
  • Communication date: 2017-05-22
  • Application number(s): 41747/10
  • Country:   TUR
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 8, 8-1
  • Conclusion:
    Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3-a - Manifestly ill-founded)
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Access to court)
    Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage
    Just satisfaction)
    Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
    Just satisfaction)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.526229
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The application concerns the applicant’s electrocution in 2005 at the hotel where he was working as a waiter, which incident left him severely disabled.
The criminal proceedings initiated into the incident were discontinued in 2012, as the prosecution of the relevant offence had become time‐barred.
The compensation proceedings that the applicant brought against the (private) employer company for the accident resulted in the award of a substantial amount of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages (approximately 175,000 euros (EUR) in total, plus interest running from the date of incident).
It appears, however, that the applicant has not yet been able to receive the said amount, despite the enforcement proceedings he has brought against the employer company.
The principles concerning the Contracting States’ positive obligations under Article 2 to protect the right to life are equally applicable to serious interference with the right to physical integrity falling within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention (see Trocellier v. France (dec.), no.
75725/01, 5 October 2006; Codarcea v. Romania, no.
31675/04, § 103, 2 June 2009; and S.B.
v. Romania, no.
24453/04, § 70, 23 September 2014).
The case therefore raises issues under Article 8 of the Convention as to whether the judicial response in the aftermath of the accident had been effective, particularly as regards the capacity of the judicial apparatus to provide adequate civil redress to the applicant, having regard to his apparent inability to secure the enforcement of the relevant civil court judgment granting him damages.

Judgment