CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023) EARTHQUAKES IN TÜRKIYE AS A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS… not fulfilled its obligations under the aforementioned articles within the context of pollution levels and major-accident hazards arising out of a chemical factory’s operations. Similarly, it considered Article 2 in conjunction with Article 8 in the case Brincat and Others v. Malta 26 after an explosion of asbestos in the vicinity of shipyard repair workers. As to the violation of human rights in the context of a semi-natural disaster (heavy flash flood) in the case Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia, 27 the Court held the state was liable not only for the violation of Articles 2 and 8, but also for the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – protection of property. The Court stated that the authorities had put the lives of the applicants at risk by releasing the water without any prior warning, and found that the responsible officials and authorities had failed to protect the applicants’ rights under the provisions of the Convention. Environmental rights and the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 3 of the Convention) were the subject of cases against Romania 28 within the failure of positive obligations of state agents (in prisons). The fundamental freedoms – freedom of assembly and association (Article 11) and freedom of expression, as well as the freedom to receive an impart information (Article 10) – are also considered within environmental rights. 29 As for Türkiye, the violation of Article 2 of the ECHR by the Turkish government was confirmed by the European Court in the case Özel and Others v. Turkey , 30 in which the Court found that state authorities had failed to act promptly in determining responsibilities and circumstances of the collapse of a building which caused deaths during the earthquake in 1999 in a region classified as a “major risk zone” of seismic activity. Back then, the 1999 earthquake was considered one of the deadliest earthquakes ever recorded in Türkiye, taking over 17.000 lives. The court further stressed the lack of adequate investigation by authorities and the tolerance of illegal acts and failure in responsibilities in result of which the buildings collapsed. The Court back then held the Turkish government’s failure to enforce the building regulations and conduct proper inspections of the buildings, which contributed to the high number of casualties (those same failures also contributed to the tragic devastation of the 2023 earthquakes). Similarly, the Court held in two other cases against Türkiye: In Öneryıldız v. Turkey , 31 the ECtHR found the state had failed to take adequate measures to protect the right to life of individuals living in areas affected by dangerous industrial activities. The European Court considered not only reinterpretations of particular human rights and substantive positive obligations, but also violations of the state’s procedural positive 26 Judgment of the ECtHR in Brincat and Others v. Malta , 2014, Applications Nos. 60908/11, 62110/11, 62129/11, 62312/11, and 62338/11. 27 Judgment of the ECtHR in Kolyadenko and Others v. Russia , 2012, Applications Nos. 17423/05, 20534/05, 20678/05, 23263/05, 24283/05 and 35673/05. 28 see Judgments of the ECtHR in cases Florea v. Romania , 2010, Application No. 37186/03, and Elefteriadis v. Romania , 2011, Application No. 38427/05. 29 See for example judgments of the ECtHR in the cases Bumbeș v. Romania , 2022, Application No. 18079/15, or in the cases Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom , 2005, Application No. 68416/01. 30 Judgment of the ECtHR in Özel and Others v. Turkey , 2015, Applications Nos. 14350/05, 15245/05 and 16051/05. 31 Judgment of the ECtHR in Öneryildiz v. Turkey , 2004, Application No. 48939/99.

195