The Constitutional Court gave a verdict of violation of rights in the Pamukova train accident case, which went back and forth between the local court and the Supreme Court 7 times and eventually fell out of statute of limitations. The court stressed that the case was left on protracted.
According to the news of Alican Uludağ from Deutsche Welle Turkish;” The Constitutional Court ruled that the case regarding the Pamukova train accident, in which 2004 people died and 41 people were injured in 90, went back and forth between the court and the Court of Cassation seven times and was dismissed due to the statute of limitations. Stating that the case was left on protracted, the Supreme Court ruled that H.T., who lost his wife in the accident, be paid 50 thousand TL for non-pecuniary damage.
The passenger train, which made the Istanbul/Haydarpaşa-Ankara expedition, derailed on July 22, 2004, near Mekece Mahallesi in the Pamukova district of Sakarya. In the expert report prepared within the scope of the investigation, it was determined that the train, which was supposed to go at a maximum speed of 80 kilometers per hour at the scene, was traveling at a speed of 130 kilometers at the time of the accident. The report found fault with the driver FK, the second driver RS and the train chief KC. Sakarya Chief Public Prosecutor's Office filed a lawsuit against three names.
The case, which started in 2004, went back and forth between the Court of Cassation and the local court seven times until 2019.
Announcing its first decision in 2008, Sakarya 2nd High Criminal Court acquitted K.C. and sentenced FK to 2 years and 6 months in prison and R.S to 1 year and 3 months in prison. The 12th Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court overturned this decision a year later.
Re-examining the case in 2012, the court stated that the crime charged to the defendants was “causing an accident on the railway as a result of negligence or inexperience in his profession or art, disobedience to regulations and orders and rules”, and decided to drop the case on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired.
Supreme Court overturned for the second time
The Supreme Court of Appeals overturned the decision of the local court, deciding that the crime was within the scope of "causing the death of more than one person and the injury of many people as a result of carelessness and carelessness".
The local court, which decided the case in 2014, ruled that the accused R.S be sentenced to 1 year and 15 days in prison, and the accused F.K was sentenced to 3 years, 1 month and 15 days in prison.
Third reversal from the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Appeals, which detected deficiencies in the reasoned decision in 2018, overturned the decision again. Sakarya 2nd High Criminal Court, in its last hearing in 2019, decided that F.K should be fined 15 thousand 784 TL and R.S. with a judicial fine of 47 thousand 352 TL, and ordered them to pay these fines in 20 equal installments. . However, this decision was also delayed.
The 12th Chamber of the Court of Cassation, which reconsidered the case in the same year upon the appeal, ruled that the public case against the defendants be dropped on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired.
HT, who lost his wife in the accident, made an individual application to the Constitutional Court as a last resort.
AYM: The case has been dragged on
The First Section of the Constitutional Court discussed the file at its meeting on November 23, 2021. Deciding that the procedural aspect of the applicant's constitutionally guaranteed right to life was violated, the Supreme Court ruled that the applicant be paid a net compensation of 50 thousand TL for non-pecuniary damage.
According to the information received, in the reasoning of the decision, the writing of which is still ongoing, "Considering the content of the proceedings in the whole of the trial and the reversal decisions, the reason for the dismissal of the case due to the statute of limitations is that the case was left on hold. In this respect, it cannot be said that the proceedings subject to the application were carried out with reasonable care and speed.
File about TCDD managers is missing
On the other hand, Sakarya Chief Public Prosecutor's Office stated that although automatic or semi-automatic control systems to assist machinists should be installed, they were not installed and deficiencies were noted in the superstructure. kazanHe also opened an investigation against the officials of the TCDD General Directorate with the allegation that he played a role in the occurrence of the TCDD. The Chief Public Prosecutor's Office, which made a decision of lack of jurisdiction within the scope of the investigation, sent the file to the Ankara Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. In the decision of the Constitutional Court, it was noted that the statement "The result of this investigation could not be determined".