The multinational gold mine at Bergama violates the right to a healthy environment, rules the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), concluding a decade old imbroglio between the Turkish government and local farmers.

The ECHR also decided that the locals’ right to a just trial was also violated. The ECHR decision is likely to yield to the sealing off of the mine, legal experts believe.

The cyanide leach method employed for extracting gold in the Bergama, Ovacik gold mine, adjacent to fertile farmlands 100 km to the north of western Agean port of Izmir, comprises the major source of controversy.

In spite of contrary environmental hazard reports by specialized bodies and contrary decisions by the council of state successive Turkish governments have authorized the operation of the mine with the justification that it is of economic import.

However, environmental activists and local farmers have been campaigning to stop the cyanide leach gold processing for the wellbeing of the people and the nature.

The ECHR decision on the Bergama, Ovacık bears great import, as it is the first instance that the ECHR rules about a case in which “the executive body fails to implement the judicial decision” regarding Turkey.

Lawyer Mehmet Nur Terzi, who is one of the 10 applicants filing the case against the Turkish government, says that Turkey must follow up the necessary procedures in the next three months and close down the mine according to the Council of State’s decision.

Terzi assesses the meaning of the decision to bianet as follows:

"With the rejection of the Government’s objection, the decision made by the Lower Chamber becomes absolute. Turkey, in three months, should remove the reasons for the violation. That means the mine should be closed. Moreover, the 10 applicants will be rewarded 3,000 Euros damage each”.

Danger to a Healthy Environment

The rejection of Government’s objection yields to reaffirmation of the earlier decision of the ECHR, dated 10th November 2004 given by the 3rd Chamber.

“The Government objected by saying that the mine is healthiest and most secure in the world, and does not pose any risks to the environment.

“However, the Court did not discuss that matter at all. What the judges debated was whether the two clauses of the European Convention for the Human Rights were violated or not. These are the clauses on the right to a just trial and healthy environment, which the Court decided that were not respected,” says Terzi, lawyer of the farmers.

The Sixth Clause of the European Convention for the Human Rights regulates the right to a fair trial. This clause concerns both the trial stage and the process of implementation of the courts’ decisions.

The State Council ruled in 1997 that the mine should be closed. However, the former Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit did not follow up its decision with consensus of the Council of Ministers. This is why the ECHR decides that the national court violated the clause of right to just trial. (TK/EK/SAÖ/YE)

Meanwhile, the Eighth Clause regulates the rights to live in a healthy environment. The national court secured the right live in a healthy environment with its decision. However, the ECHR rules that the Ecevit Government disrespected the legal decision concerning that clause.

Terzi says that their case before the ECHR regarded the complaints of only 10 applicants, but there are 640 applicants’ cases awaiting trial. Therefore, he believes that the ECHR decision constitutes legal basis for forthcoming cases.

Another case for implementing the legal decision

Lawyer Mehmet Nur Terzi says also that they are filing another case regarding the implementation of the ECHR’s previous decision. This new case alleges that the decision of the 3rd Chamber was disregarded and new permissions were issued for usage of the mine. However, the mine was deactivated when these permissions were taken once more to the courts. (TK/SEA/EK/YE)