Events
H.H.K., a relative of the applicants who works as a security guard in a housing estate, stated that he had been threatened with death in a phone call he made to the person in charge of the 155 Police Help line between 01.58 on the day of the incident subject to the application and 02.00 at 13 seconds before the time. During this call, the sounds of a brawl were heard from the environment where H.H.K. was present. In addition, Ö.K., the courier who delivered food orders to the site Where the incident occurred, called the 155 Police Help line a few minutes before the act of wounding and said that İ.H.B. threatened H.H.K. with a knife. H.H.K. was stabbed in the leg by İ.H.B. at 02.09 hours. Police teams arrived at the scene at 02.25 and lifeguards at 02.30. H.H.K. died two days after the incident as a result of haemorrhage caused by a large vessel cut due to sharp and piercing instrument injury. After this incident, the applicants filed a full judgement case against The Ministry of Interior before the administrative court. At the end of the trial, the administrative court rejected the applicants’ claim for compensation on the grounds that the administration had no fault in the death of the applicants’ relative and that the administration could not be held responsible for the incident in accordance with the principle of strict liability or social risk. The applicants appealed against the aforementioned decision, and the Court of Appeal rejected the applicants’ appeal on the grounds that the decision of the administrative court was in accordance with the law and that there was no legal reason to overturn the aforementioned decision.
Allegations
The applicants claimed that the right to life was violated due to the fact that the police did not respond to the emergency call for help within a reasonable period of time, which resulted in an injury resulting in death, and the lack of a rigorous examination in the full judgement case filed for compensation for the damages arising from this incident.
The Court’s Assessment
Since the applicants complained that the police arrived at the scene of the incident too late in the proceedings, the application addressed whether the administrative court and the court of appeal conducted an examination with the rigour required by the right to life.
During the proceedings subject to the application, the police officers in charge of the two teams assigned upon H.H.K.’s call for help stated in their statements within the scope of the disciplinary investigation that the team responsible for the neighbourhood was not on duty on the day of the incident and that they did not know the streets of this neighbourhood well. Upon this, the reason for this situation was asked from the district police directorate; the district police directorate informed the administrative court that there was no such situation as the relevant police team not being on duty on the day of the incident and that one of the teams under the Public Security Branch Directorate was on duty in an area including the neighbourhood where the incident occurred.
On the other hand, according to Ö.A., who acted as an investigator in the disciplinary investigation, the fact that the main team responsible for the neighbourhood was not on duty on the day of the incident was one of the reasons for the late arrival at the scene. Despite this, the administrative court, without making a clear assessment of Ö.A.’s determination, dismissed the case on the grounds that there was no grave service defect in the incident, taking into account that the address information that would allow the police teams to intervene effectively could only be obtained at 02.02, that the 155 Police Help Officer reported the address information to the teams on duty at the same minute, and that H.H.K. was stabbed at 02.09.
On the other hand, in a report included in the case file subject to the application, it was stated that although both teams learnt that the incident was a knife fight – instead of reaching the scene of the incident immediately – they started to search for the suspect, even the relevant law enforcement officers checked a few people on the road, and when they finally reached the address, they saw that the person was lying on the ground and the courier was at his head. Ö.K., the courier, whose statement was taken as a witness, stated that after reporting the incident, he went to the security guard when he saw that the police did not come although he waited for about ten minutes, that he saw the suspect trying to wrap the leg of the security guard, that he called the ambulance, and that the ambulance arrived after the police officers arrived at the scene and radioed the incident.
Although H.H.K. had been threatened with a knife and was injured at the scene, the fact that both teams went to search for the suspect was seen as carelessness. The applicants also argued, inter alia, in their petition for appeal that the distance of the teams’ headquarters from the scene of the incident was only 558 metres. This allegation should also be assessed, especially in terms of determining whether it was possible to reach the scene before the attack in order to prevent the attack.
Since it is understood that H.H.K. died two days after the incident as a result of haemorrhage caused by a large vessel cut due to sharp and piercing instrument injury, it is undoubted that the rapid arrival of law enforcement officers to the scene of the incident is of utmost importance in terms of the protection of the right to life, both in terms of the prevention of the attack and the measures to be taken after the attack.
However, it is concluded that the administrative court and the court of appeal did not make an assessment at the level required by Article 17 of the Constitution as to whether the absence of the main team responsible for the relevant neighbourhood on duty on the day of the incident caused the police to reach the scene of the incident late, whether the situation was reported to the police team or police station that could reach the scene as soon as possible after learning of the threat of death, and whether.
The teams that took action upon the announcement made showed the utmost care and effort to reach the scene quickly. In this context, the courts of first instance failed to provide a relevant and sufficient justification for the allegations, which are extremely important in terms of whether the police reached the scene of the incident as soon as possible both to prevent the knife attack and to ensure that the necessary measures were taken to protect the right to life afterwards, and failed to shed sufficient light on the incident in this respect.
Considering the above findings regarding the procedural dimension of the right to life, it is not possible to examine the claim that the substantive dimension of the right to life has been violated at this stage.
The Constitutional Court has decided that the procedural dimension of the right to life has been violated for the reasons explained.
You can access our other article examples and petition examples by clicking here.