Özel and Others v. Turkey (applications nos. 14350/05, 15245/05 and 16051/05)
 
Proceedings failed to establish responsibilities for death of earthquake victims
 
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of Özel and Others v. Turkey (applications nos. 14350/05, 15245/05 and 16051/05) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights under its procedural head.
The case concerned the deaths of the applicants’ family members, who were buried alive under buildings that collapsed in the town of Çınarcık in an earthquake on 17 August 1999, one of the deadliest earthquakes ever recorded in Turkey.
The Court found in particular that the national authorities had not acted promptly in determining the responsibilities and circumstances of the collapse of the buildings which had caused the deaths.

A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia (application no. 44095/14)
 
Expulsion of criminal suspect to China would expose him to risk of facing the death penalty, in violation of the Convention
 
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of A.L. (X.W.) v. Russia (application no. 44095/14) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously:
that the applicant’s forcible return to China would give rise to a violation of Article 2 (right to life) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and
that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention in a detention centre for aliens and on account of the conditions of his detention at a police station.
The case concerned, in particular, the complaint by a man residing in Russia and wanted as a criminal suspect in China that if forcibly returned to China, he would be at risk of being convicted and sentenced to death.
The Court considered that, given that the exclusion order against the applicant mentioned explicitly that he would be deported if he did no leave Russia before the stated deadline and that his Russian passport had been seized, he was at imminent risk of deportation to China where he might be sentenced to death. Russia was bound by an obligation, under the Convention, not to expose him to such risk.

L.M. and Others v. Russia (application nos. 40081/14, 40088/14, and 40127/14)
 
Expulsion from Russia to Syria would violate the European Convention on Human Rights
 
The case of L.M. and Others v. Russia (application nos. 40081/14, 40088/14, and 40127/14) concerned the impending expulsion of three men to Syria from Russia and their detention pending expulsion in Russia.
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously:
that the applicants’ forced return to Syria would give rise to a violation of Article 2 (right to life)
and/or Article 3 (prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights;
that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (f) (right to liberty and security) and Article 5 § 4
(right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court); and
that Russia had failed to comply with its obligations under Article 34 (right of individual petition).
This was the first time that the Court addressed in a judgment the issue of returns to Syria in the current situation. The Court found that, in view of international reports about the crisis in Syria and additional information about the applicants’ individual situation, the applicants had put forward a well-founded allegation that their return to Syria would expose them to a real risk to their lives and personal security.
Having regard to its finding that the applicants’ detention, since the last decision by the Russian courts confirming their expulsion order in May 2014, had been in breach of Article 5, the Court held, in application of Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), that Russia was to ensure the immediate release of two of the applicants who had so far remained in detention.

Lambert and Others v. France: there would be no violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of implementation of the Conseil d’État judgment of 24 June 2014

In today’s Grand Chamber judgment1 in the case of Lambert and Others v. France (application no. 46043/14) the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there would be no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of implementation of the Conseil d’État judgment of 24 June 2014.

The case concerned the judgment delivered on 24 June 2014 by the Conseil d’État authorising the withdrawal of the artificial nutrition and hydration of Vincent Lambert.

The Court observed that there was no consensus among the Council of Europe member States in favour of permitting the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. In that sphere, which concerned the end of life, States must be afforded a margin of appreciation. The Court considered that the provisions of the Act of 22 April 2005, as interpreted by the Conseil d’Etat, constituted a legal framework which was sufficiently clear to regulate with precision the decisions taken by doctors in situations such as that in the present case.

The Court was keenly aware of the importance of the issues raised by the present case, which concerned extremely complex medical, legal and ethical matters. In the circumstances of the case, the Court reiterated that it was primarily for the domestic authorities to verify whether the decision to withdraw treatment was compatible with the domestic legislation and the Convention, and to establish the patient’s wishes in accordance with national law.

The Court’s role consisted in examining the State’s compliance with its positive obligations flowing from Article 2 of the Convention.

The Court found the legislative framework laid down by domestic law, as interpreted by the Conseil d’État, and the decision-making process, which had been conducted in meticulous fashion, to be compatible with the requirements of Article 2.

The Court reached the conclusion that the present case had been the subject of an in-depth examination in the course of which all points of view could be expressed and that all aspects had been carefully considered, in the light of both a detailed expert medical report and general observations from the highest-ranking medical and ethical bodies.

Investigation by a military court into the circumstances of a death during military service was sufficiently independent and thorough

In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey (application no. 24014/05) the European Court of Human Rights held, by a majority, that there had been:

no violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned the death of a young man, Cihan Tunç, during his military service, while assigned to a site belonging to a private oil company for which the national gendarmerie was providing security services.

The Court considered that the investigation conducted in this case had been sufficiently thorough and independent and that the applicants, Cihan Tunç’s parents, were involved in it to a degree sufficient to protect their interests and to enable them to exercise their rights. It pointed out that the independence of an investigation for the purposes of Article 2 is not necessarily to be assessed in the same manner as the independence of a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) of the Convention. It also emphasised that Cihan Tunç’s death had not occurred in circumstances which might, a priori, give rise to suspicions against the security forces as an institution, as for instance in the case of deaths arising from clashes involving the use of force in demonstrations, police and military operations or in cases of violent deaths during police custody.