4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Hatay. 5.  On 20 February 1998 the applicant’s ten-year-old son, Erhan Cevrioğlu, was found dead, together with his friend G.B., who was around the same age, after falling into a water-filled hole on a construction site where they had apparently been playing. The cause of death was determined as drowning. 6.  The hole on the construction site was covered by the Municipality of Antakya (“the Municipality”) in the aftermath of this tragic incident. 7.  Shortly after the incident, criminal proceedings were instigated against the owner of the construction site, H.C. (also referred to as “the employer”) and three officials from the Antakya Municipality for causing death by negligence and failing to comply with the regulations and orders, pursuant to Article 455 of the Criminal Code in force at the material time (Law no. 765). 8.  During the course of the criminal proceedings the Hatay Criminal Court of First Instance obtained three different expert reports with a view to determining liability for the death of the applicant’s son.
(a)  The first expert report 9.  The first report, dated 16 April 1998, was drawn up by three civil engineers. The report noted at the outset that the hole in question, which measured 5 x 15 metres with a 2 metre depth, had been dug in the side yard of the construction for use as a shelter and no safety measures had been taken to enclose it. The hole was located 36 metres from the main avenue and 18 metres from the closest apartment building. The witnesses interviewed at the scene of the incident, including two construction workers, confirmed that no precautions had been taken to cover or otherwise enclose the hole. The two workers indicated that they had initially placed wooden planks on the south side of the hole but had later removed them after discovering that children were throwing them into the hole. They further stated that the construction workers were aware that the hole in question regularly filled up with rainwater and one of them said that they occasionally used the water that accumulated in the hole for construction work. The workers disagreed, however, as to when the hole had been dug: while one of them claimed that it had been there since June or July 1997, the other one said that it had been dug only two months prior to the incident. 10.  On the basis of their observations and the witness statements, the committee of experts concluded that the deceased children had been partly at fault for the incident (25%), as the construction site where they had been playing was clearly not a play area. The experts noted that the Municipality also bore 25% responsibility for the two children’s deaths, as (i) they had failed to duly inspect whether the construction, for which it had issued a permit, had complied with the rules on work safety, and to ensure that the construction site had been properly closed off with wooden panels as a safety measure, and (ii) it was not clear on what legal ground it had allowed the digging and the use of the hole in question as a shelter, as such shelters had to be built beneath buildings and not in open spaces. According to the experts, the remaining responsibility (50%) lay with the owner, H.C., who had failed to put in place the necessary safety measures on the construction site, such as building a wooden fence around the hole, erecting warning signs or recruiting a security guard to control access to the construction site.
(b)  The second expert report 11.  On 25 May 1998 a second report was prepared by three occupational safety experts. Reiterating the factual findings in the previous report of 16 April 1998, the experts identified four main causes of the accident in question: (i) absence of wooden panels around the construction site, which was located in a residential area in close proximity to other houses and public roads; (ii) absence of any railing around the hole; (iii) absence of signs prohibiting entry into the construction site or warning against the water-filled hole on the site; and (iv) lack of diligence of the deceased children. The experts indicated that responsibility for all of the causes identified, save for the last one, lay with the employer, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Labour Code (Law no. 1475) and the Regulation on Workers’ Health and Occupational Safety in Construction Work (Yapı İşlerinde İşçi Sağlığı ve İş Güvenliği Tüzüğü) in force at the material time. They noted that, according to the information provided to the investigation authorities by the applicant, the hole in question had been open for the past eight to ten months, and a number of residents from the neighbourhood had warned H.C. to take the necessary safety measures against the hazards on the construction site, particularly vis-à-vis children. However, H.C. had disregarded all their warnings, saying that parents were responsible for attending to the safety of their children. They further noted that at the time of the incident the construction work had been suspended and the site had been unsupervised. 12.  Relying on the information and evidence they had gathered, the experts concluded that H.C. had principal liability for the incident (75%) on account of his failure to take the necessary safety precautions in and around the construction site in compliance with the relevant laws and regulations. They stressed that the failure to install wooden panels around the construction site was one of the principal reasons for the accident. They further found that the remaining responsibility lay with the deceased children, as they should have been aware of the perils of entering a construction site and approaching a water‑filled hole, even at their young age. The experts considered, lastly, that while the Municipality had a general duty to inspect construction sites and impose penalties for breaches of the laws, they could not be held accountable for failing to conduct inspections, impose safety precautions or issue penalties unless it could be proven with conclusive evidence that the authorities had overlooked the deficiencies on the construction site despite having been aware of them, or had otherwise neglected their duties, which evidence was lacking in the instant case.
(c)  The third expert report 13.  On 4 April 1999 a third expert report was issued by a committee of experts from the Istanbul Technical University. The report indicated that neither the construction site nor the hole in which the deceased children had drowned had been surrounded by panels or a wooden fence to prevent unauthorised access. Similarly, there had been no warning signs around the construction site or the hole. According to the expert report, H.C. had made the following statements in the aftermath of the incident before the investigative authorities and the trial court:
“... [After digging the hole on the construction site], I enclosed the hole with wooden planks. Children kept removing the planks. That is why the hole was not closed off. [At the time of the incident] the hole was filled with water following rainfall. On a previous occasion, we had pumped the rainwater out. I was in Ankara at the time [of the incident]. I have no fault here... . If I had not been out of town, I would have checked the hole and covered it.
...
In view of the size and depth of the hole, it was not possible to cover it. We had therefore put planks around it... There were no warning signs around the hole. I was in Ankara when the incident took place, and the construction had stopped while I was gone. The hole filled up with water whenever it rained... It must have filled up again when I was away, there was no opportunity to remove the water.” 14.  Referring to the relevant provisions of the Labour Code, the Regulation on Workers’ Health and Occupational Safety in Construction Work and the Municipalities Act (Law no. 1580) in force at the material time (see “Relevant domestic law”, below, for further details), the experts from the Istanbul Technical University found that H.C. and the Municipality were 75% and 25% at fault respectively and that no liability could be attributed to the deceased children. They indicated that since the construction work had started, none of the safety measures required under the relevant legislation had been put in place. Moreover, no permission had been obtained for the digging of the hole or the “shelter” in question, which had claimed the two children’s lives; nor had any safety measures been taken around it to prevent accidents. The experts stressed that the dangers posed by the hole had been aggravated when it rained, as the muddy surface made it easier for people to slip and fall in. The responsibility for failure to take any safety measures around the hole or to prevent access to the construction site, despite the knowledge that the site attracted children, fell firstly on the contractor and then on the Municipality, which was required to inspect the construction site periodically in order to identify deficiencies and issue the necessary warnings; the Municipality authorities had clearly neglected that duty.
(d)  Judgment of the Hatay Criminal Court of First Instance 15.  On 14 April 2000, relying on the third expert report, the Hatay Criminal Court of First Instance held that İ.H.S., who was the director of reconstruction at the Municipality (belediye imar müdürü), and the construction owner, H.C., were 25% and 75% responsible for the incident respectively. Accordingly, the court found the accused guilty as charged. 16.  However, on 9 July 2001 the Court of Cassation quashed that judgment, finding that the case should have been examined under Law no. 4616, which provided, inter alia, for the suspension of criminal proceedings in respect of certain offences committed before 23 April 1999. 17.  Accordingly, on 6 August 2001 the trial court decided, pursuant to section 1(4) of Law no. 4616, that the criminal proceedings should be suspended and eventually discontinued if no offence of the same or of a more serious kind was committed by the defendants within the next five years. 18.  On 16 September 2002 the family members of both deceased children, including the applicant, initiated compensation proceedings before the Hatay Civil Court of First Instance against H.C., his construction company and the Antakya Municipality, arguing that they bore joint responsibility for their children’s deaths. The applicant and his family claimed 5,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] in respect of pecuniary damage and TRL 3,000,000,000[2] in respect of non-pecuniary damage, together with interest accrued from the date of the incident. 19.  On 5 November 2004 an expert report was prepared by a mechanical engineer, who was also an expert on occupational safety, and an architect at the request of the Hatay Civil Court of First Instance. After setting out the circumstances in which the incident had occurred, much like in the previous reports submitted to the criminal court, and referring to the relevant provisions of the Labour Code and the Regulation on Workers’ Health and Occupational Safety in Construction Work, the experts concluded that H.C. bore 85% of the responsibility for the incident on account of his failure to take the necessary safety measures on the construction site, such as erecting wooden panels or other fencing around the site, taking special precautions in those parts of the site that presented a danger of falling, placing warning signs as necessary, informing the construction workers of possible hazards at the construction site and employing a guard to control access to the site. They indicated in particular that the unenclosed hole, which had been opened in June or July 1997, had presented a grave danger for the residents and the children in the neighbourhood, which risk increased when the hole filled with water and became slippery on the edges following rainfall. They also stressed that, according to the relevant Court of Cassation jurisprudence, the responsibility of the employer was not limited to putting the necessary safety measures in place to avert the existing and potential dangers on the construction site, but he or she was also required to supervise compliance with those measures. 20.  Turning to the liability of the deceased children, the report held that while it was natural for the children to have been playing out on the street, they should not have entered the construction site and approached the water-filled hole, the dangers of which were obvious bearing in mind in particular that the ground had been slippery at the relevant time. It therefore found that the children bore the remainder of the liability for their own deaths on account of their failure to display the necessary care and diligence. 21.  As for the alleged responsibility of the Municipality, the experts stated that the latter had had no involvement in the construction, apart from issuing the necessary permits. Moreover, the accident had occurred within the boundaries of the construction site, and not in a public space or other area under the direct responsibility of the Municipality. In such circumstances, the Municipality could not be held responsible for the deficiencies on the construction site; otherwise, the Municipality would have to be held liable for all accidents occurring in any construction. They accordingly concluded that the owner of the construction site bore sole responsibility for the site. 22.  On 22 March 2005 the Hatay Civil Court of First Instance upheld the applicant’s case in part. The court stated that, after examining the findings of the Hatay Criminal Court of First Instance and the expert reports submitted to that court, it had requested a further expert report in order to clarify the conflicting aspects of the previous reports. On the basis of that final report, the court established that the responsibility of H.C. and his construction company for the incident was 85%. It thus concluded that H.C. and the construction company were to pay TRL 5,000,000,000 in respect of pecuniary damage to the applicant and his wife and TRL 3,000,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the applicant, his wife and their three surviving children as requested, with interest accrued from the date of the incident. The court dismissed the case concerning the Municipality, as no fault could be attributed to it on the facts before it. 23.  On 12 April 2006 the applicant, along with the other claimants, appealed against the decision of the first-instance court. They mainly argued that, despite the Municipality’s liability for the incident having been established in the criminal proceedings, the Hatay Civil Court of First Instance had ordered a new expert report against their wishes, and moreover had disregarded their objections concerning the findings in the said report. The Municipality was clearly responsible for the deaths of the two children for having tolerated the presence of a large and uncovered water-filled hole in the very centre of the city for months on end, yet its responsibility had been disregarded by the first-instance court. 24.  On 18 June 2007 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment with regard to the part concerning the Municipality. It noted that the first‑instance court should have dismissed the case against the Municipality at the outset for procedural reasons, without examining its substance, as the complaints concerning the Municipality’s responsibility to inspect the construction site fell within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts. The Court of Cassation upheld the rest of the judgment. 25.  Accordingly, on 11 December 2007 the Hatay Civil Court of First Instance dismissed the case against the Municipality. The court also noted that its previous judgment concerning H.C. and his construction company had become final and that there was no need to render a new judgment in respect of that part of the case. 26.  The applicant did not appeal against that judgment, which eventually became final on 16 February 2009. 27.  On an unspecified date in 2009 the applicant, together with other family members, brought compensation proceedings before the Hatay Administrative Court against the Municipality for the death of their son and brother Erhan Cevrioğlu due to the alleged negligence on the part of the Municipality in the discharge of its inspection duties. 28.  On 31 December 2009 the Hatay Administrative Court requested a copy of the case file pertaining to the compensation proceedings initiated by the applicant and others from the Hatay Civil Court of First Instance. Subsequently, on 29 January 2010 the Administrative Court requested the case file of the criminal proceedings against H.C. and the municipality officials from the Hatay Criminal Court of First Instance. On 23 March 2010 the Administrative Court also requested the applicant’s lawyer to submit the relevant criminal court decision along with the expert reports submitted to that court. 29.  On 9 December 2010 the Hatay Criminal Court of First Instance informed the Administrative Court that the relevant criminal case file could not be found. However, on 14 February 2011 the applicant’s lawyer submitted the requested documents to the administrative court. In the meantime, the case file pertaining to the compensation proceedings was also made available by the Hatay Civil Court of First Instance. 30.  On 11 March 2011, relying solely on the expert report submitted to the Hatay Civil Court of First Instance on 5 November 2004, and without undertaking any analysis of its own as to the responsibilities of the Municipality under the applicable legislation and whether it had fulfilled those responsibilities, the Hatay Administrative Court held that no fault was attributable to the Municipality on the facts of the instant case and thus dismissed the compensation claims of the applicant and his family. The Hatay Administrative Court emphasised in its judgment that the earlier ruling of the Hatay Civil Court of First Instance, which had apportioned liability for the incident between H.C. and his company and the deceased children, had also been upheld by the Court of Cassation. 31.  On 15 November 2011 the Adana District Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court, and on 26 April 2012 it rejected rectification requests lodged by the applicant and his family. 32.  According to a declaration submitted to the Hatay Civil Court of First Instance on 23 October 2013 by the lawyer who had represented the applicant in the proceedings before that court, the applicant and his family had not received any compensation from H.C. and his company, nor had they commenced enforcement proceedings against the latter.