New development in Sedat Cezayiroğlu's struggle

While nine workers who remained under the rubble in the landslide that occurred on February 13 at the Çöpler Gold Mine owned by the Anagold company in the İliç district of Erzincan have not yet been reached, the Constitutional Court has issued a violation ruling regarding an application concerning the mine in question.

19 DAYS BEFORE THE DISASTER

It has emerged that a violation ruling was issued on January 25, 19 days before the disaster, in the individual application of rights defender Sedat Cezayirlioğlu, who has for years drawn attention to the danger posed by the cyanide gold mine in İliç and was even taken into custody following the disaster at the mine.

Cezayiroğlu filed an individual application to the Constitutional Court in July 2020. In the application, it was claimed that the right to respect for private life was violated due to the dismissal of the lawsuit filed for the cancellation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) positive decision granted for the Çakmaktepe Mine Open Pit Operation Capacity Increase Project (the project).

The high court issued a violation ruling regarding the dismissal of the lawsuit filed with a request for a stay of execution by the Erzincan Administrative Court.

NO SUBSTANTIAL EVALUATION, NO AGRICULTURAL ENGINEER

The Constitutional Court, recalling the application of Eşref Demir regarding the same project, also drew attention to the dissenting opinions in the case. The two members who did not join the approval decision pointed to the fact that 22 percent of the project area consists of pasture land, that no substantial evaluation was made regarding whether livestock farming in the region would be affected, and that there was no agricultural engineer on the expert panel.

In the decision, it was emphasized that while the experts stated in the EIA report that the livelihood of the local residents is livestock farming and that the pasture remaining in the project area is used, the report was limited to noting that the pasture was partially destroyed. In its ruling, the High Court stated that the justification put forward by the court based on the expert report was limited. In the AYM decision, which stated that no direct response was given to the applicant's specific claims, it was noted that public authorities did not fulfill their positive obligations in the context of the right to respect for private life.

News Source: 12punto