SECOND SECTION
\nCASE OF KUR\u015eUN v. TURKEY
\n(Application no. 22677\/10)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n30 October 2018<\/p>\n
FINAL
\n30\/01\/2019<\/p>\n
This judgment has become final under Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Kur\u015fun v. Turkey,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n Robert Spano, President, Having deliberated in private on 2 October 2018,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 22677\/10) against the Republic of Turkey lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Turkish national, Mr MazharKur\u015fun (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 30 March 2010.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr A. \u00c7akan and Mr A.\u015e. Deniz, lawyers practising in Batman. The Turkish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant alleged,in particular, that his right to a fair trial under Article\u00a06\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention had been violated on account of the erroneous interpretation of a time-limit rule by the civil courts. He also alleged under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the State authorities had not taken the necessary preventive and remedial measures to protect his right to property.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 December 2016 the application was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 February 2018 further information was requested from the parties, in accordance with Rule 49 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Rules of Court, on the interpretation of the relevant time-limit rule set out in Article 60 \u00a7 1 of the former Code of Obligations by the Court of Cassation.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Batman.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Background to the case<\/strong><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant is the owner of a property in the Toptanc\u0131larSitesi area of Batman, which has mainly been used as an industrial park since 2002. Toptanc\u0131larSitesiis located in close proximity to the T\u00fcpra\u015f Batman Oil Refinery (\u201cT\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery\u201d or \u201cT\u00fcpra\u015f\u201d), which was a State-owned enterprise until its privatisation in 2005, and to an oil storage and supply facility run by the Ministry of Defence (MilliSavunmaBakanl\u0131\u011f\u0131Akaryak\u0131t\u0130kmalve NATO POLTesisleri\u2013 hereinafter \u201cANT\u201d). It appears that there are also a number of private petrol stations in the vicinity.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 May 2004 a large underground explosion took place in Toptanc\u0131larSitesi, which resulted in three deaths and many injuries. The explosion and ensuing fire also damaged many properties in the vicinity, including that of the applicant.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0A number of administrative commissions were establishedin the aftermath of the incident in order to determine the cause of the explosion and the damage caused by it, as well as to secure the area of the explosion.Further information regarding the work undertaken by those commissions, and other entities, is outlined below.<\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Fact-finding commission<\/em><\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The fact-finding commission established by the Batman governor\u2019s office consisted of, among others, the governor, deputy governor and mayor of Batman, the director of the Batman Security Directorate, the director of the local office of the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, the directors of the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery and the Turkish Petroleum Corporation (T\u00fcrkiyePetrolleriAnonimOrtakl\u0131\u011f\u0131\u2013hereinafter \u201cTPAO\u201d) and the presidents of the local chambers of architects, mechanical engineers and geological engineers.It appears that the preliminary investigations led by the fact\u2011finding commission, with the assistance of experts, established that the explosion had been caused by an underground oil leak, although the source of the leak could not be identified.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 27 May 2004 the fact-finding commission decided that some of the businesses in Toptanc\u0131larSitesishould be evacuated in view of the risk of further explosions. It is not clear from the information in the case file whether the applicant\u2019s property was amongst those evacuated at the relevant time.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0There is no further information in the case file as to any other action taken by the fact-finding commission.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Damage assessment commission<\/em><\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The Batman governor\u2019s office established a damage assessment commission, with a view to ascertaining the damage sustained in the area as a result of the explosion. Following the inspections performed, the commission established six heavilydamaged, ten moderatelydamaged and thirty-one slightlydamaged businesses, and two slightlydamaged residences in the area. The owners of those properties were declared \u201cdisaster victims\u201d. The applicant\u2019s property was not amongst those identified as damaged by the commission. The owners of the damaged properties were provided with some rent allowance and other assistance.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Commission for the Discharge of Chemicals of an Unknown Origin<\/em><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The Commission for the Discharge of Chemicals of an Unknown Origin measured the levels of underground gas in the area and, where high levels of gas were detected, arranged for it to be discharged through pipes.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0Technical commission<\/em><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0A technical commission was set up on an unspecified date to determine the source and extent of the oil leak, and to make proposals for cleaning up the area affected. The commission consisted of representatives from the Batman municipality, the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery and academia, as well as from the local chambers of architects and engineers of various disciplines. In its report dated 14 June 2004 the commission stated that the explosion had occurred as a result of the compression of petroleum products that had leaked into the underground water.<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0Under the supervision of the commission, a number of shafts were drilled to extract the leaked oil. However, the commission stated in the aforementioned report that despite its continuous efforts, it had not made any progress in cleaning up the leak,giventhe magnitude of the problem, and its lack of sufficient means and expertise. It had however discovered that the contamination was concentrated outside the walls surrounding the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery and that no leakage had been observedaround the ANT\u00a0pipeline.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The members of the technical commission, with the exception of the T\u00fcpra\u015f representative, also stated in the same report that while they had not been able to establish the source of the leak conclusively, theirinvestigation suggested that the leak may have originated from the T\u00fcpra\u015f\u00a0Refinery. It is not clear whether and when this report was made public.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0The Prime Minister\u2019s Office Commission<\/em><\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0Upon the instruction of the Prime Minister\u2019s Office, which had deemed the aforementioned report of the technical commission to be insufficient, another commission was established under the coordination of the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources for the purposes of ascertaining the cause of the explosion. The commission was made up of, among others, academics, engineers and representatives from various ministries, the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery and TPAO.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0According to its interim report dated 11 October 2004, the studies it had carried out in Toptanc\u0131larSitesishowed that the explosion of 3\u00a0May\u00a02004 had been the result of an environmental pollution phenomenon that was much more complex than initiallyestimated.The management of this unprecedented environmental crisis required the utmost care, expertise, information and interpretational skills. The pollutant at issue was a mixture of crude oil and various petroleum products and, according to its estimations, there were between 500 and 2,000 tonnes ofsuch material above groundwater. Technical limitations prevented the determination of the source of the leak with absolute certainty. However, the interpretation of the available data suggested that pollution of such great magnitude could only have been caused over a long period by a facility with a high capacity of petroleum refining and storage in the vicinity, which pointed to the T\u00fcpra\u015fRefinery (a conclusion whichwas challenged by T\u00fcpra\u015f and TPAO representatives). The report also stressed, however, the absence of conclusive evidence to back up this assumption.It added that once responsibility for the leak was determined with certainty by the national courts, all claims for damages could be directed against the party responsible.<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0In the same report, the commission recommended the involvement of the State Water Board (Devlet Su \u0130\u015fleri \u2013 \u201cDS\u0130\u201d) in the operation carried out in the area to establish the source of the leak. It also recommended the closure of the Toptanc\u0131larSitesi area to housing and commercial activity until the underground oil leak was cleaned by professional experts, given the risk of further explosions and fire posed by the leak. It is not clear whether and when this report was made public.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0In accordance with the proposal in the above interim report, on 17\u00a0August 2005 the Local Environment Board of the Batman governor\u2019s office decided that no business or occupation permits should be granted in the area designated as the \u201cred zone\u201d, which consisted ofan area of 200\u00a0x\u00a0300 metres where the contamination was at its highest, until the underground clean-up operation in the area was completed.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0High-level commission<\/em><\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0Following receipt of the interim report mentioned above, the Prime\u00a0Minister\u2019s Office instructed the establishment of a high-level commission to take, or recommend, more concrete steps to tackle the environmental disaster at issue and determine its causes.There is no information in the case file as regardsits composition.<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0In January 2005 the commission invited the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery and ANT to carry out tests on their pipelines to determine whether the oil leak at issue had originated from them and, if so, to take the necessary precautions.It appears from the information in the case file that neither T\u00fcpra\u015f nor ANT assumed responsibility for the leak.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0In January 2005 the high-level commission also took some decisions regarding the underground clean-up operation that had to be undertaken in the contaminated area. Accordingly, it invited the Batman governor\u2019s office, which was tasked with coordinating the decontamination operation, to issue a call for tenders for the clean-up operation. There is, however, no further information in the case file as to whether the Batman governor\u2019s office initiated the tender process or took any other steps to get the clean-up operation underway.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Studies conducted by other entities<\/em><\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0According to a report dated 12 May 2004 prepared by experts from T\u00fcpra\u015f, pressure tests conducted on the ANT pipeline suggested the possibility of a leak in that pipeline. They referred in this connection to some reports which indicated that the ANT pipeline had been damaged during excavation work carried out in September 2002. The experts further noted that water wells drilled along the ANT pipeline in previous years had revealed the presence of petrol in the underground water. Wells drilled in the vicinity ofT\u00fcpra\u015fpetrol tanks after the explosion to disclose any leaks originating from those tanks on the other hand had not yielded any results.<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0It was also noted in the same report that before its reconstruction as an industrial park, the Toptanc\u0131larSitesi area had been used for the trade and storage of petroleum products, as well as for the repair of tankers, which may have played a role in the contamination of the area.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 May 2004T\u00fcpra\u015fissued a press release mainly recapitulating the claims made in the above report. It was indicated in the press release that although no leaks had been detected around its petrol tanks, a couple of wells drilled elsewhere on the refinery grounds had revealed the existence of a mixture of water and oil flowing towards the refinery from an outside source. It was also stressed that the levels of oil in the tanks were monitored electronically and that, therefore, any leaks of such substantial amounts would not have gone unnoticed.<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0In February 2005 DS\u0130 submitted to the Batman governor\u2019s office a report which found that the oil leak had heavily contaminated an area of 1\u00a0sq. km around the Toptanc\u0131larSitesi area. It was estimatedthat the leak had been ongoing for a very long time and that it involved some four to six thousand tonnes of phenol.<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0According to a report prepared by the petrol analysis laboratory of the Middle East Technical University (Ortado\u011fuTeknik\u00dcniversitesi \u2013 hereinafter \u201cODT\u00dc\u201d) on 15 October 2004, the product that had caused the explosion was a refined petroleum product that did not exist in nature as such and, therefore, it must have originated from another source. It was not, however, possible to speculate that the petroleum had leaked from the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery.<\/p>\n 30.\u00a0\u00a0In a report issued on 16 June 2005, experts from the DokuzEyl\u00fcl University in \u0130zmir stated, inter alia, that the oil leak at issue had, in all likelihood, emanated from T\u00fcpra\u015f. They added that the difficulties faced in identifying the source or sources of the leak probably resulted from technical limitations.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0Current situation<\/em><\/p>\n 31.\u00a0\u00a0According to information obtained from the Municipality of Batman on 13 September 2017, the restrictions on business and occupation permits imposed by the Local Environment Board of the Batman governor\u2019s office on 17 August 2005 in the so-called \u201cred zone\u201d (see paragraph 21 above) were still in force, as no progress had been made in cleaning up the underground oil leak.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Criminal proceedings initiated against T\u00fcpra\u015f executives<\/strong><\/p>\n 32.\u00a0\u00a0Soon after the explosion, the Batman public prosecutor\u2019s office initiated an investigation into the incident.<\/p>\n 33.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 December 2004 it filed a bill of indictment with the Batman Assize Court against a number of serving T\u00fcpra\u015f executives in connection with the explosion, accusing them under Article\u00a0383 \u00a7 2 of the former Turkish Criminal Code (Law no. 765) of causing unintentionally (by carelessness, negligence or inexperience) an explosion that resulted in death, injury and damage.The public prosecutor relied as evidence on the commission reports mentioned in paragraphs 10 to 24 above.<\/p>\n 34.\u00a0\u00a0Sixty-four people, including the relatives of the victims who had lost their lives as a result of the explosion, as well as others who had sustained bodily or financial harm, joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties (m\u00fcdahil). The applicant was not amongst them.<\/p>\n 35.\u00a0\u00a0At the first hearing held on 28 January 2005, a representative of the victimsclaimed that even if the oil leak which had caused the explosion had originated from the ANT pipeline, T\u00fcpra\u015f, as the supplier of the oil into that pipeline, remainedresponsible for the explosion. They nevertheless requested the judicial authorities alsoto prosecute the relevant officials from the ANT who were in charge of the oil pipeline. The Batman Assize Court decided that the lawyer\u2019s request concerning the ANT officials would be taken into considerationon receipt of expert reports on the source of the leak.<\/p>\n 36.\u00a0\u00a0The T\u00fcpra\u015f executives mainly made the following arguments in their defence statements.<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0There were several oil pipelines, oil storage facilities and petrol stations in the area apart from the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery, the largest being the ANT facilities. The oil pipeline between ANT and T\u00fcpra\u015f, which had been used since 1972 to transfer F-46 military oil, had been inoperative since 1992, and a report prepared in 2002 attested that the pipeline had been empty at the time. However, the studies conducted on the pipeline after the explosion showed not only that there had been F-57 military oil in the pipeline, which had not been supplied by T\u00fcpra\u015f, but also that the pipeline had been damaged.<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0According to its modus operandi, the ownership of both oil pipelines and the product supplied by T\u00fcpra\u015f belonged to the purchaser, and T\u00fcpra\u015f was not accountable for any damage or loss arising from a damaged pipeline.<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a0\u00a0The wells drilled around the T\u00fcpra\u015fstorage tanks had not revealed any oil leaks, which ruled out the possibility that the leak had originated from the refinery.<\/p>\n (iv)\u00a0\u00a0The petroleum extracted from the various wells drilled in Toptanc\u0131larSitesihad been analysed in the ODT\u00dc laboratory, and the results of the analysis showed that the sample product was not amongst those produced at the T\u00fcpra\u015f Batman Refinery.<\/p>\n (v)\u00a0\u00a0Petroleum production consisted of only 5.95 % of the total production of the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery, and the remaining capacity was mainly devoted to the production of diesel fuel, asphalt, fuel-oil, solvents, residual oil and naphtha. In these circumstances, it was illogical to claim that the leak allegedly originating from the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery consisted only of the 5.95\u00a0% of its production, and that none of the remaining products, which made up the bulk of its production, had leaked.<\/p>\n (vi)\u00a0\u00a0All product lines at the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery were above ground and consistently monitored.<\/p>\n 37.\u00a0\u00a0The victims contested the defendants\u2019 claim that the 2002 report concerning the ANT pipeline indicated that the pipeline had been empty. They also claimed that the analysis conducted at the ODT\u00dc laboratory was not decisive, as the laboratory had checked the samples obtained from the wells only against the current products of the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery. That analysis did not necessarily take into accountthe changes over time in the refinery\u2019s production or the changes sustained by the products underground, considering that the leak had been ongoing for a long time.<\/p>\n 38.\u00a0\u00a0On 31 July 2006, at the request of the Batman Assize Court, three professors from ODT\u00dc submitted an expert reporton the source of the leak. Relying on all the information in the case file, including the commission reports noted in paragraphs 10 to 24 above, the experts made the following findings.<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0The studies carried out so far were inadequate to determine the source of the leak. For instance, although wells had been drilled outside the surrounding walls of the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery, which had revealed a significant amount of petroleum above groundwater, no drilling had been carried out on the other side of the walls. Without drilling wells in the appropriate key locations, it would not be possible to determine whether the leak had originated from a damaged pipeline or from the refinery.<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0Various construction works and excavations carried out in the Toptanc\u0131larSitesi area over the years had revealed the presence of petroleum under the ground long before the explosion. Therefore, the fact that there was an oil leak had been known for many years, including, most probably, by the State authorities, although it was not possible to pinpoint when the leak had started.<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a0\u00a0The suspectedcorporations shouldnormally have the technical means and manpower to detect any leaks originating from their facilities and take the necessary precautions. However, where leaks arose from breaches of pipelines or other equipment by malicious individuals for the purposes of theft, then these institutions could not be expected to uncover such incidents by their own efforts alone. Since the leak in question involved a highly valuable economic commodity, it seemed highly improbable that the institutions would not take any action to stop such a leakafter taking notice of it.<\/p>\n 39.\u00a0\u00a0On 7 November 2006 three other experts, all of whom were engineers who worked as work safety inspectors, issued a second report. They noted in the report that the studies undertaken thus far had not been able to reveal the source or sources of the leak. The viewthat the T\u00fcpra\u015f\u00a0Refinery was responsible for the incident had not been based on sufficient evidence. Hard evidence would be required to impute responsibility to persons or corporations and no conclusions could be reached on the basis ofmere presumptions.<\/p>\n 40.\u00a0 On 1 May 2008 the Batman Assize Court delivered its judgment on the case. It held that while its proximity to the site of the explosion suggested thatT\u00fcpra\u015fwas responsible for the explosion, it was not possible to determine whether any of the individual suspects should bear liability for it, particularly given that the leak had been ongoing for a considerable amount of time and that the suspects would surely have taken action had they been aware of the leak.The Assize Court accordingly acquitted the T\u00fcpra\u015f executives.<\/p>\n 41.\u00a0\u00a0On 17 January 2012 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court and discontinued the proceedings as prosecution of the offence in question had become time-barred.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Compensation proceedings brought by other property owners<\/strong><\/p>\n 42.\u00a0\u00a0On different dates in 2004 a number of property owners in Toptanc\u0131larSitesi brought compensation proceedings against both the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery and ANT before the Batman Civil Court of First Instance (\u201cthe Batman Civil Court\u201d) in respect of the damage they had sustained as a result of the explosion in question. In the course of one of thosesets of proceedings (case no. 2004\/963 E.), the Batman Civil Court ordered an expert report from three university professorsto determine the source of the leak.<\/p>\n 43.\u00a0\u00a0On 3 March 2006 the experts submitted their report to the Batman Civil Court. The following findings were made in the report:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0the product thathad leaked underground was gasoline;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0it was highly likely that the contamination had been caused by an underground accumulation of gasoline that had leaked from one or more sources over a long period;<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a0\u00a0given the location and movement of the underground contamination slick and the ground water flow direction, the source of the leak must have been in the south, where the T\u00fcpra\u015f facilities were located;they stated that any leak originating from the ANT pipeline would have generated a contamination slick in a northwesterly\/northerly direction alongside the pipeline, which had not been the case;this left the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery as the only plausible source of the leak.<\/p>\n (iv)\u00a0In addition to their legal responsibility arising from the failure to detect and prevent the leak in a timely manner, the State authorities were responsible on account of their negligence inauthorising the establishment of residences and businesses in such close proximity to the refinery despite the apparent dangers it posed.<\/p>\n 44.\u00a0\u00a0The Batman Civil Court admitted that report into another case file concerning the same incident (case no. 2004\/966 E.) and, relying on the findings in that report, on 21 July 2006 it decided that the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery was solelyresponsible for the leak. It dismissed the claims against ANT.<\/p>\n 45.\u00a0\u00a0The judgment of the Batman Civil Court, which was the first occasion on which the T\u00fcpra\u015f Refinery was publicly confirmed as the source of the leak by a court of law, was upheld by the Court of Cassation on 30 January 2007. A request made by T\u00fcpra\u015f for rectification of that decision was rejected on 18 June 2007.<\/p>\n D.\u00a0\u00a0Compensation proceedings brought by the applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n 46.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 November 2006 the applicant brought an action for compensation against T\u00fcpra\u015f before the Batman Civil Court. He requested a total of 10,000 Turkish liras (TRY) for the depreciation of the value of his property after the explosion and for his loss of rental income for the following eighteen months, reserving his right to increase those claims. The applicant argued in his petition that following the explosion, Toptanc\u0131larSitesihad been declared a hazardous area by the Batman governor\u2019s office and had accordingly been evacuated, which had significantly reduced the value of his property. He had also been deprived of his rental income for the next year and a half. Moreover, since the necessary steps had not been taken to clean the oil leak, the area was still at risk of further explosions. The applicant also stated that the responsibility of T\u00fcpra\u015f for the explosion had been established by the expert reports submitted to the Batman Civil Court in another case (see paragraphs44 and 45 above).<\/p>\n 47.\u00a0\u00a0In its response dated 19 December 2006, T\u00fcpra\u015f claimed firstly that the applicant\u2019s claims had become time-barred, as he had failed to lodge his action within one year of the date of the explosion. It also claimed, inter alia, that:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0given the proximity of the site of the explosion to theT\u00fcpra\u015f facilities, many wells had been dug around the T\u00fcpra\u015f oil tanks to locate the source of the leak;however, none of those wells had revealed any oil leaks;on the other hand, wells dug around the perimeter of the Refinery had revealed the presence of oil that had leaked from elsewhere towards the Refinery;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0the scientific analysis of the samples obtained from the site of the explosion showed that the leaked material had not been produced by T\u00fcpra\u015f;<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a0\u00a0the expert reports submitted to the criminal case file found that T\u00fcpra\u015f could not be held liable for the explosion;<\/p>\n (iv)\u00a0\u00a0although the pipeline between T\u00fcpra\u015f and ANT had officially been out of use since 1992, it had been noted after the explosion that the pipeline in question had actuallybeen full of oil;moreover, the pressure tests carried out subsequently showed that the pipeline had been punctured and was leaking oil;<\/p>\n (v)\u00a0\u00a0the complaints arising from the security measures taken in Toptanc\u0131larSitesi after the explosion, such as the ceasing of commercial activity and the denial of occupation licences, were outside the competence of T\u00fcpra\u015f.<\/p>\n 48.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 February 2007 the applicant brought another action against T\u00fcpra\u015f in respect of the structural damage that his property had sustained as a result of the explosion, and requested TRY 6,000 as compensation. He reserved his right to subsequently increase his claim.The applicant stressed in his petition that the sole responsibility of T\u00fcpra\u015f for the explosion had now been definitively established, as the judgment delivered by the Batman Civil Court against T\u00fcpra\u015f in case no. 2004\/966 E. had been upheld by the Court of Cassation (see paragraphs 44 and 45 above). The Batman Civil Court joined the case to the one that the applicant had previously brought in November 2006.<\/p>\n 49.\u00a0\u00a0The Batman Civil Court ordered an expert report to determine the extent of the applicant\u2019s damage. The experts carried out an on-site inspection at the applicant\u2019s property on 7 March 2007, and reported their findings on 12 March 2007. They mainly noted the following:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0the impact of the explosion had been equivalent to that of an earthquake with a magnitude of 9 on the Richter scale;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0the applicant\u2019s property, which was used as business premises, had been mostly repaired by the time of the on-site inspectionand commercial activity had resumed;some cracks were nevertheless visible on the walls;<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a0\u00a0the infrastructure of the building, including water, electricity and telephone connections and the sewer system, had had to be repaired as a result of the damage sustained in the basement;<\/p>\n (iv)\u00a0\u00a0leavingaside the estimated wear and tear of the property since its construction, the structural damage was noted to be TRY 13,278.36;<\/p>\n (v)\u00a0\u00a0given the magnitude of the explosion, it was inevitable that the walls and structural joists of the property would sustain cracks;moreover, the explosion had considerably slowed down real estate sales in the area;having regard to these factors, it was estimated that the applicant\u2019s property had lost 50 % of its value, corresponding to TRY 66,483.25;<\/p>\n (vi)\u00a0\u00a0a drop of 60 to 70 % had been noted in the rental income of property owners in Toptanc\u0131larSitesisubsequent to the explosion;in these circumstances, the applicant\u2019s loss of rental income for the eighteen months following the explosion was calculated to be TRY 5,400.<\/p>\n 50.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the findings in the expert report, on 22 March 2007 the applicant applied to the Batman Civil Court to increase his original claims in line with the amounts calculated by the experts.<\/p>\n 51.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 April 2007 the Batman Civil Court allowed the applicant\u2019s compensation claim insofar as it concerned the depreciation of the value of his property and the structural damage it had sustained as a result of the explosion, but rejected the claims concerning a loss of rental income for lack of sufficient evidence. The Civil Court held in its decision that both the original claims and the subsequent request to increase those original claims had been brought within the one-year time-limit set out in Article 60 \u00a7 1 of the former Code of Obligations, bearing in mind that the relevant time-limit would only start running when both the damage and the tortfeasor responsible for that damage became known to the victim. It stressed in this regard that the identity of the tortfeasor at issue had only been \u201cknown\u201d once the judgment in case no. 2004\/966 E., which had established T\u00fcpra\u015f as solely responsible for the explosion, had been upheld by the Court of Cassation, and the request for rectification of that Court of Cassation decision was still pending.<\/p>\n 52.\u00a0\u00a0On 26 October 2007T\u00fcpra\u015f appealed against that judgment. In its appeal, it mainly repeated its time-limit objections and contested the findings in the expert report of 12 March 2007that had formed the basis of the first-instance court\u2019s judgment. The company also stressed that it had been held responsible for the explosion without any objective and tangible proof. Bearing in mind that 132 similar civil actions had been brought against its refinery in connection with the explosion of May 2004, it now risked paying damages ofoverTRY 10 to12 million, plus interest and court fees.<\/p>\n 53.\u00a0\u00a0On 18 February 2008the 4th Chamber of the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court, holding that the time-limit for bringing an action under Article 60 \u00a7 1 of the former Code of Obligations, which had started running on the date of the explosion, had expired by the time that the applicant had brought his claims. The Court of Cassation held in this connection that the explosion at issue had taken place on 3 May 2004 and that, soon after that date, some of the property owners in Toptanc\u0131larSitesi had brought compensation claims against T\u00fcpra\u015f. Since the applicant was also a property owner in Toptanc\u0131larSitesi, he should have formed an opinion regarding the responsibility of T\u00fcpra\u015f for the explosionon the date of its occurrence. The Court of Cassation stated that venturing a guess as to the identity of the tortfeasor, within the bounds of possibility, was sufficient to bring an action; it was not necessary to have the tortfeasor established with certainty. The applicant\u2019s claim that he had brought the action subsequent to the establishment of the tortfeasor as T\u00fcpra\u015f in a case brought earlier by other property owners could not stop the running of the time-limit from the date of the explosion. The Court of Cassation further stated that although criminal proceedings had also been brought against T\u00fcpra\u015f executives in connection with the explosion in question, the longer prescription period applicable to the criminal offence at issue could not applyto the civil compensation claim brought against T\u00fcpra\u015f within the meaning of Article 60 \u00a7 2 of the former Code of Obligations. That was because, where a civil claim brought against a company for offences committed by its employees was concerned, the longer time-limit provided in the Criminal Code applied in the civil proceedings only for offences under Article 465 of the Criminal Code. Since the charges brought against the T\u00fcpra\u015f executives did not concern one of the offences under Article 465, the civil claim against T\u00fcpra\u015fshouldhave been brought within the aforementioned one-year time-limit.<\/p>\n 54.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 May 2008 the applicant\u2019s representative requested rectification of the decision of the Court of Cassation. He mainly made the following arguments:<\/p>\n (i)\u00a0\u00a0the Court of Cassation\u2019s ruling that merely guessing, or being in a position to guess, the tortfeasorwas sufficient to trigger the Article\u00a060 \u00a7\u00a01 time\u2011limit ran counter to the doctrine and settled practiceof the Court of Cassation on the issue, which unambiguously required certain and exact knowledge of the tortfeasorbefore the time-limit could start running;the applicant relied in this connection on a judgment of the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation dated 22\u00a0November\u00a01974, as well as to some articles drafted by legal scholars and practitioners dating as far back as 1992;<\/p>\n (ii)\u00a0\u00a0the studies conducted in the aftermath of the explosion showed that the explosion had not been a simple accident, but had involved very complex elements;bearing in mind that it had taken even the experts in the field almost one year of scientific studies to establish the exact cause of the explosion, and another year after that to identify its source, a simple layman such as him could not be expected to have known the tortfeasor on the very daythat the explosion took place;<\/p>\n (iii)\u00a0\u00a0in these circumstances, he had only acquired the requisite knowledge of the tortfeasor upon the finalisation of case no. 2004\/966 E;<\/p>\n (iv)\u00a0\u00a0it was wellestablished in the legal doctrine, as well as in the Court of Cassation judgments, that where \u201ccontinuing damage\u201d was concerned, the time-limit would only start running when the damage at issue came to an end;bearing in mind the risk of further explosions at Toptanc\u0131larSitesi on account of the leak, his damage had not come to an end.<\/p>\n 55.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 September 2008 the 4th Chamber of the Court of Cassation dismissed that request without providing any reasoning.<\/p>\n 56.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 December 2008 the Batman Civil Court delivered a judgment in line with the quashing decision of the Court of Cassationand dismissed the applicant\u2019s claims for having become time\u2011barred.<\/p>\n 57.\u00a0\u00a0On 10 March 2009 the applicant appealed against that judgment. In his appeal, he mainly reiterated the arguments noted in paragraph 54 above. He also stated that the 7th Chamber of the Court of Cassation had ruled in many cases concerning the same explosion that for the purposes of the time\u2011limit rule set out in Article\u00a060 \u00a7 1, the requisite knowledge of the tortfeasorcould not be considered to have been acquired before the respective actions had been brought (see the cases noted in paragraph\u00a068 below). The 7th and 4th Chambers of the Court of Cassation had, therefore, delivered contradictory judgments on the same legal issue concerning identical facts.<\/p>\n 58.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 May 2009 the 4th Chamber of the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the first-instance court without responding to any of the applicant\u2019s claims.<\/p>\n 59.\u00a0\u00a0On an unspecified date the applicant requested rectification of the Court of Cassation\u2019s decision. Hehighlighted, inter alia, the absence of any evidence in the case file to suggest that he had learned the identity of the tortfeasor prior to its establishment by the Batman Civil Court in case no.\u00a02004\/966 E.<\/p>\n 60.\u00a0\u00a0On 22 October 2009the 4th Chamber of the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant\u2019s rectification request.<\/p>\n II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Code of Civil Procedure<\/strong><\/p>\n 61.\u00a0\u00a0Under Article 439 \u00a7 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure in force at the material time (Law no. 1086), an appeal was possible against judgments delivered by first-instance courts in compliance with earlier quashing decisions of the Court of Cassation.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Code of Obligations<\/strong><\/p>\n 62.\u00a0\u00a0Under Article 41 of the Code of Obligations (Law no. 818) in force at the material time (\u201cthe former Code of Obligations\u201d), any person who caused damage to another in an unjust manner, be it wilfully, negligently or imprudently, had to provide redress for that damage.<\/p>\n 63.\u00a0\u00a0Article 42 of the former Code of Obligations provided that it fell on the claimant to prove his or her damage. Where the exact value of the damage could not be ascertained, the judge would estimate the value on an equitable basis.<\/p>\n 64.\u00a0\u00a0UnderArticle 60 \u00a7 1 of the same law, an action for compensation for damage would become time-barred one year after the date on which the damage and the identity of the author thereof became known (\u0131tt\u0131la) or, at the latest, ten years after the commission of the act that had caused the damage.<\/p>\n The same provision provided in its second paragraph that where the compensation claim originated in an act which also constituted an offence undercriminal law that was subject to a longer prescription period, then that longer period would also apply in the action for compensation.<\/p>\n C.\u00a0\u00a0Judgments of the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation concerning the interpretation of Article 60 \u00a7 1 of the former Code of Obligations<\/strong><\/p>\n 65.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation haveinterpreted the one-year time-limit rule set out in Article\u00a060\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the former Code of Obligations as follows[1]:<\/p>\n \u201cUnder Article 60, paragraph 1 of [the Code of Obligations], the right to lodge an action for compensation in connection with a tortious act starts when the victim learns of the damage and the tortious act, and will become time-barred after one year. What is essential in this respect is [for the victim to have] learned of the damage and the [person] liable to pay the compensation. [Merely] being in a position to learn [this] is not sufficient to trigger the time-limit. Depending on whichever of the damage or the [person] liable [for the damage] is learned later, the time-limit shall start running from that later date.\u201d<\/p>\n 66.\u00a0In two judgments dated 24 October 1970 (e. 966\/4-1588 K. 601) and 17\u00a0September 2008 (E. 2008\/4-558 K. 2008\/547), the Joint Civil Chambers of the Court of Cassation dismissed the time-limit objection by the respective respondentson the grounds that the latter had failed to demonstrate, with sufficient evidence, that the claimant had learned the identity of the real tortfeasor more than one yearbeforethe casehad been brought.The Joint Civil Chambers stressed in both cases that it fell on the respondent to prove that the relevant knowledge had been acquired before the date alleged by the claimant.It is also evident from the reasoning in both cases that the failure of the claimant to take the necessary steps to uncover the identity of the actual tortfeasor could not be used against him in the calculation of the time-limit, as the one-year time\u2011limit would only start running from the date on which the claimant actually learned who the real tortfeasor was.<\/p>\n D.\u00a0\u00a0Interpretation of the relevant time-limit rule in the legal doctrine<\/strong><\/p>\n 67.\u00a0\u00a0Excerpts from books and articles relied on by the parties in their submissions, and the references therein,suggest that the aforementioned interpretation of the relevant time-limit rule has alsolong been embraced in the legal doctrine[2]. The Court notes, in particular, an article published in 2008 in the journal of the Union of Turkish Bar Associations on the trigger of the limitation period in tort claims, which was cited by the Government in their observations[3]. Relying on a number of older books and articles by legal scholars and practitioners, this article claimed that a person would only be deemed to have attained the requisite \u201cknowledge\u201d of the identity of the tortfeasor if he or she had acquired exact and certain information that was sufficient to bring a legal action; mere suspicions and guesses as to the identity of the tortfeasorwere not deemed to constitute \u201cknowledge\u201d for the purposes of Article\u00a060 \u00a7 1 of the former Code of Obligations. The Court notes that the same argumentwas made in an article published in October\u00a01978 in the Journal of Court of Cassation judgments by a judge rapporteur at the Court of Cassation[4]. It also notes that the same principles were reiterated in 1992 in an article published by another judge in the Court of Cassation periodical[5], which the applicant relied on in his observations.<\/p>\n E.\u00a0\u00a0Judgments of the Court of Cassation in compensation proceedings concerning the explosion at issue<\/strong><\/p>\n 68.\u00a0\u00a0In a number of cases decided in early 2007 concerning claims brought in 2006 (that is, more than one year after the explosion) by other victims of the explosion at issue, the 7th Chamber of the Court of Cassation rejected the time-limit objections raised by T\u00fcpra\u015f. It referred, in this regard, to the absence of any evidence or documents in the relevant case files to demonstrate that the claimants had learned of the damage or the tortfeasor prior to lodging their claims[6].<\/p>\n 69.\u00a0\u00a0It appears, however, from the information submitted by the present applicant, as well as from other applications communicated together with the present application[7], that the 4th Chamber of the Court of Cassation has subsequently adopted a different approach. It ordered the start of the time\u2011limit from the date of the incident, holding that the injured parties had been in a position to assess the responsibility of T\u00fcpra\u015f for the explosion as of that date.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 70.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that he had been denied a fair trial on account of the dismissal of his compensation claim as being out of time, which had been based on an inaccurate interpretation of Article 60 \u00a7 1 of the former Code of Obligations, as well as an erroneous assessment of the facts. He further maintained that the domestic court decisions had lacked reasoning, and had contradicted decisions delivered by the Court of Cassation in respect of others who had sustained damage to their properties as a result of the same explosion. The applicant relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n 71.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also complained in his observations submitted to the Court on 16 October 2017 that, given that criminal charges had also been brought against T\u00fcpra\u015f officials in connection with the explosion at issue, the criminal prescription period applicable to those charges should have alsoapplied in the corresponding civil proceedings as per Article 60 \u00a7 2 of the former Code of Obligations.<\/p>\n 72.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested those arguments.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Compliance with the six-month time-limit<\/em><\/p>\n a.\u00a0\u00a0TheGovernment\u2019s preliminary objection<\/p>\n 73.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the applicant had failed to comply with the six-month time-limit set out in Article 35 \u00a7 1 of the Convention. They claimed in this regard that the \u201cfinal decision\u201d for the purposes of that provision had been that delivered by the Batman Civil Court on 19\u00a0December\u00a02008. Since that decision had been delivered in compliance with the earlier quashing decision of the Court of Cassation dated 18\u00a0February 2008, a further appeal against it would not have yielded a different result or a reassessment on the part of the Court of Cassation.<\/p>\n 74.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant did not comment on this issue.<\/p>\n 75.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that the six month time-limit imposed by Article\u00a035 \u00a7 1 of the Convention requires applicants to lodge their applications within six months of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. This entitles only remedies which are normal and effective to be taken into account, as an applicant cannot extend the strict time-limit imposed under the Convention by seeking to make inappropriate or misconceived applications to bodies or institutions which have no power or competence to offer effective redress for the complaint in issue under the Convention (see Fernie v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.\u00a014881\/04, 5\u00a0January 2006).<\/p>\n 76.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the judgment delivered by the Batman Civil Court on 18 April 2007 in the applicant\u2019s favour was subsequently quashed by the Court of Cassation on 18 February 2008. The case was thus remitted to the Batman Civil Court, which decided on 19 December 2008 to comply with the quashing decision of the Court of Cassation. The Government claimed, without relying on any legal provisions or domestic case-law to support their claim, that the judgment of the first\u2011instance court dated 19\u00a0December 2008 had been the final effective decision concerning the applicant\u2019s compensation claim, as the Court of Cassation had been prevented from making a reassessment on the same matters. The Court notes, however, that under Article 439 of the Code of Civil Procedure in force at the material time, it was open to the parties to lodge an appeal against a first\u2011instance court judgment that had been delivered in compliance with an earlier quashing decision by the Court of Cassation (see paragraph\u00a061 above).<\/p>\n 77.\u00a0\u00a0By appealing against the Batman Civil Court\u2019s judgment of 19\u00a0December 2008, the applicant, therefore, clearly used an ordinary right of appeal that had been granted to himby the Code of Civil Procedure. In the absence of sufficient arguments to the contrary by the Government, the Court finds no reason to doubt the effectiveness of that remedy. The Court notes, furthermore, that the applicant raised pertinent questions that called for a response from the Court of Cassation both during the appeal and the subsequent rectification stages (see paragraph 99 below for further arguments on this matter), and his attempts to clarify those important matters that went to the very core of his right of access to court cannot be used against him in the assessment of his compliance with the six\u2011month time-limit.<\/p>\n 78.\u00a0\u00a0In the light of the above, the Court considers that the Government\u2019s objection that the applicant submitted his complaints out of time should be dismissed.<\/p>\n b.\u00a0\u00a0Compliance with the six-month time-limit in respect of the applicant\u2019s complaints raised after notice of the application was given to the Government<\/p>\n 79.\u00a0\u00a0In his observations dated 16 October 2017 in reply to those of the Government, the applicant submitted a new complaint regarding the alleged failure of the domestic courts to apply the special time-limit provided for in Article 60 \u00a7 2 of the former Code of Obligations in the compensation proceedings that he had brought against T\u00fcpra\u015f (see paragraph 71 above).<\/p>\n 80.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this additional complaint concerns the compensation proceedings which were finalised on 22 October 2009. The Court further notes that it does not constitute an elaboration on the applicant\u2019s original complaints to the Court, but raises a new issue. Accordingly, the Court must reject it pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention for having been lodged outside the six-month time\u2011limit (see, for instance, AshotHarutyunyan v.\u00a0Armenia, no. 34334\/04, \u00a7\u00a099, 15\u00a0June\u00a02010; Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, no.\u00a017854\/04, \u00a7\u00a7 93-94, 20 September 2011; and A.D.and Others v.\u00a0Turkey, no.\u00a022681\/09, \u00a7 127, 22\u00a0July\u00a02014).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Other admissibility issues<\/em><\/p>\n 81.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this part of the application is not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention and that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The parties\u2019 arguments<\/em><\/p>\n a.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant<\/p>\n 82.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention that he had been denied a fair trial on account of the erroneous decisions of the domestic courts, which had wrongly rejected his case as being out of time and which had, moreover, lacked sufficient reasoning. The applicant maintained in particular that the domestic courts had erred in the interpretation and application of the criteria pertaining to the calculation of the relevant time-limit rule under Article 60 \u00a7 1 of the former Code of Obligations and had failed to take into account the special circumstances of his case, thus depriving him of access to a court.<\/p>\n 83.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant explained that under Article 60 \u00a7 1 of the former Code of Obligations, an action for damages had to be brought within one year of both the identity of the wrongdoer and the damage sustained becoming known to the victim.<\/p>\n 84.\u00a0\u00a0As regards the first criterion concerning the identity of the wrongdoer, the applicant claimed that it had long been established in Court of Cassation decisions, as well as in the legal doctrine, that the one-year time\u2011limit in question would not start running until the wrongdoer was determined with certainty, and that mere suspicions as to responsibility were not enough to set off the time-limit. The applicant submitted examples from the case-law of the Court of Cassation and the doctrine to support his claim. Bearing in mind the technical difficulties encountered, even by experts, in identifying the source of the leak in the instant case, the responsibility of T\u00fcpra\u015f for the explosion had been far from certain for a long time after the incident, and he could not have been expected to bring a case in such circumstances on the basis of mere speculation. The applicant stressed in this connection that although the report issued by the technical commission on 14\u00a0June 2004 had indicated that the leak had probably originated from T\u00fcpra\u015f, that report had been deemed unsatisfactory, and the Prime Minister\u2019s Office had therefore established new commissions to investigate the source and circumstances of the leak (see paragraphs18 and 22 above). In itssubsequent report dated 11 October 2004, the Prime Minister\u2019s Office Commission had stated that it ultimately fell on the courts of law to establish, with certainty,whowas responsible for the explosion (see paragraph 19 above).<\/p>\n 85.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant also contested the Government\u2019s allegation that the media had widely reported from very early on that T\u00fcpra\u015fwas responsible for the explosion (see paragraph 90 below), and submitted other newspaper articles, includingsome published years after the incident, concerning the ongoing uncertainty regarding the source of the leak and the entity responsible.<\/p>\n 86.\u00a0\u00a0As for the second criterion concerning the knowledge of the damage sustained, the applicant contended that there were numerous expert reports indicating that the oil leak in the area had not stopped, which meant that there was still ongoing damage to his property, as evidenced by its loss in value and the continuing restrictions on its use on account of the persisting danger caused by the leak.Moreover, according to information obtained from the Municipality of Batman, the decision of the Local Environment Board of the Batman governor\u2019s office dated 17\u00a0August\u00a02005 regarding the withholding of business or occupation permits in the \u201cred zone\u201d (see paragraph 21 above) was still in force, since an underground clean-up operation was yet to be carried out at the site of the explosion. In these circumstances, the date of the explosion could not be regarded as the cut-off date on which he had learned of the full extent of his damage.<\/p>\n 87.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant argued, in addition, that the Court of Cassation had allowed the compensation claims of some other property owners in avirtually identical position, which compounded the unfairness of the proceedings against him. He referred in this connection to a number of decisions delivered by the 7th Chamber of the Court of Cassation in early 2007 (see paragraph 68 above). In all of those decisions, the time-limit objections raised by T\u00fcpra\u015fhad been dismissedfor lack of evidence or documents in the relevant case files to demonstrate that the claimants had learned of the damage and the responsibility of T\u00fcpra\u015f for that damage prior to lodging their claims in 2006.<\/p>\n b.\u00a0\u00a0The Government<\/p>\n 88.\u00a0\u00a0The Government maintained that it fell on the national judges to interpret the application of domestic law. In the absence of any arbitrariness in the interpretation of the time-limit rule set out in Article\u00a060\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the former Code of Obligations by the relevant domestic courts, the applicant\u2019s complaint in this regard was of a fourth-instance nature.<\/p>\n 89.\u00a0\u00a0According to the Government, the Court of Cassation had acknowledged in the applicant\u2019s case that the identity of the tortfeasor had been certain in view of the criminal and civil proceedings brought by some other property owners againstT\u00fcpra\u015f in the aftermath of the explosion. The Court of Cassation had stated that while this certainty was not of an absolute nature, the fact that the tortfeasor had been identifiable had been sufficient to bring an action. For these reasons, the applicant should have brought his compensation claim against T\u00fcpra\u015f within oneyear of the explosion.<\/p>\n 90.\u00a0\u00a0The Government added that the damage and the identity of the tortfeasor had become wellknown through the media soon after the incident, and some other property owners in the area had thus been able to bring cases against T\u00fcpra\u015f within the prescribed time-limit. They submitted a total of three news articles in support of their claim, two of which (dated 28 and 30 January 2005) reported on the commencement of the criminal investigation against T\u00fcpra\u015f executives. The other (dated 4\u00a0May 2004) concerned a statement from the governor of Batman, claiming that the explosion had been caused by the trapping of methane in the TPAO petrol pipeline.<\/p>\n 91.\u00a0\u00a0The Government further argued that the damage affecting the value of the property and the loss of rent had been known to the applicant soon after the incident; the fact that those losses had continued did not mean that there was \u201ccontinuing damage\u201d within the legal sense of the term. The cause of the damage sustained, which was the explosion, was not an incident of a continuous nature.<\/p>\n 92.\u00a0\u00a0As for the applicant\u2019s arguments regarding the contradictory decisions delivered by the Court of Cassation in identical claims arising from the same explosion, the Government claimed that all the actions referred to by the applicant had been brought within one year of the date of the explosion, that is, within the lawful time-limit. As such, they did not constitute a contradiction to the reasoning adopted by the Court of Cassation in the applicant\u2019s case.<\/p>\n
\nJulia Laffranque,
\nLedi Bianku,
\nI\u015f\u0131lKaraka\u015f,
\nValeriuGri\u0163co,
\nJon FridrikKj\u00f8lbro,
\nSt\u00e9phanie Mourou-Vikstr\u00f6m, judges,
\nand Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n