5.  The applicants were born in 1979 and 2007 respectively and live in İzmir. 6.  On 25 October 2008, as the first applicant was driving in İzmir with his wife and one year-old daughter in the back seat, he lost control of his car when the road curved into a sharp bend. As a result, the car dropped into an empty concrete canal running along the right-hand side of the road, some five to six metres below the level of the road. The first applicant’s wife, Yeşim Çakır, lost her life at the spot and his daughter (the second applicant) was slightly injured. 7.  The accident report – prepared on the same day by the traffic police on the basis of their findings and the statements of the first applicant – indicated that after the first applicant had lost control of the vehicle on the bend, it had first crashed into the metal barrier alongside the road, and had then fallen over the barrier into an empty canal. The report specified that the crash barrier at that particular spot had been damaged prior to the accident. It also indicated that a road sign warning of a sharp bend ahead had been in place at the time of the accident. 8.  After the accident the first applicant was taken to a police station to give a statement. He told the police that as he had been approaching the sharp bend, he had felt his car skidding to the left. When, at the same time, he had noticed another car approaching him from behind on his left, he had first applied the brakes and had then swerved his car to the right, at which point he had lost control of the car and hit the crash barrier on the right side of the road. However, since the barrier had been damaged prior to the incident, it had not stopped the car and, therefore, the car had dropped down into the empty canal. He claimed that he had lost control of the car as a result of the dangerous bend in the road. 9.  On the same date, the police also took a statement from M.S, an eyewitness. M.S. told the police that as he had been driving down the opposite side of the road, he had seen the first applicant’s car suddenly swerve to the right, after which it had hit the crash barrier on its right-hand side and had dropped down the side of the road. 10.  Later the same day the İzmir public prosecutor questioned the first applicant in connection with the accident. The first applicant admitted before the public prosecutor that he had lost control of the car as he had been taking the bend. He said that, for a reason unknown to him, his car had skidded. He claimed that the road had not been wet, but there had been some slippery substance on it, like sand. 11.  On 28 October 2008 the İzmir public prosecutor’s office filed a bill of indictment with the İzmir Assize Court against the first applicant, for causing death and bodily injury by negligence. 12.  At the first hearing held before the İzmir Assize Court on 15 December 2008 the first applicant stated that as he had been driving along the road at a normal speed, his car had started skidding to the left for an unknown reason, and that he had swerved the car to the right to avoid hitting the car approaching him from the opposite lane on the left. He did not ask the court to carry out an additional investigation into the incident, but stated that the fatal accident had taken place as the crash barrier alongside the road, which was supposed to have been able to stop the car, had been badly damaged. 13.  At the same hearing, the İzmir Assize Court decided that although the first applicant had been charged with causing death and bodily injury by negligence and that his negligence in that regard had been established, there was no need to subject him to a criminal penalty as it could be accepted that he had been aggrieved by the accident, which had resulted in the death of his wife, to a sufficient degree within the meaning of Article 22 § 6 of the Turkish Criminal Code. That judgment, which was not appealed against by the first applicant, became final on 23 December 2008. 14.  In the meantime, on 17 November 2008 the first applicant applied to the İzmir Magistrates’ Court for a declaratory judgment in order to establish (i)  whether and to what extent the state of the crash barrier alongside the road had contributed to the fatal accident and whether the barrier had been repaired after the accident; and (ii)  whether there had been any structural problems with the road, such as unusual sloping. 15.  The expert report submitted to the İzmir Magistrates’ Court on 5 December 2008 made the following findings:
-  the crash barrier at the bend in question had been damaged prior to the accident and the damaged parts of it had not been repaired after the accident;
-  there was a slight dent in the road right by the damaged barrier; however, there was no structural problem with the slope of the road surface. 16.  On 2 March 2009 the first applicant applied for compensation from the General Directorate of Highways (“the General Directorate”) and the Municipality of İzmir (“the Municipality”) in connection with the road traffic accident that had claimed his wife’s life. According to him, it was evident from the traffic accident report that the crash barrier at the site of the incident had been damaged prior to the incident, which suggested that other road accidents had taken place at that same spot. He argued that the defective state of the barrier, which had been put in place to prevent cars from dropping down the side of the road in the event of impact, had greatly aggravated the outcome of the accident. Had the barrier been repaired prior to the accident, it would most probably have prevented the car, which had been travelling within the legal speed limit, from dropping down into the canal, in which case his wife would possibly not have sustained fatal injuries. He further claimed that the fact that there had been other accidents at the same spot in the past suggested a structural problem with the road. 17.  Both the General Directorate and the Municipality denied responsibility for the maintenance of the crash barrier at issue. 18.  On 20 May 2009 the applicants brought an action for compensation before the İzmir Administrative Court against the Municipality alone, arguing that the latter had been responsible for Yeşim Çakır’s death on account of its failure to repair the crash barrier in a timely manner, as well as the possible structural problems with the road. The applicants submitted to the Administrative Court as evidence the expert report ordered by the İzmir Magistrates’ Court (see paragraph 15 above). 19.  The Municipality once again denied responsibility for the maintenance of the crash barrier in question, but also stated that in any event, sole responsibility for the accident lay with the first applicant, who had lost control of his car despite the road signs warning of a sharp bend ahead. 20.  In their response to the Municipality, the applicants repeated that the state of the roadside barrier showed that other accidents had happened at that exact spot on previous occasions, which in turn suggested a structural problem with the road, such as an unusual sloping towards the side. They requested an expert examination on that matter. 21.  By an interim decision dated 18 February 2010 the İzmir Administrative Court requested a copy of the criminal case file, as well as detailed information from the Municipality and the General Directorate in order to be able to determine which of those authorities had been responsible for repairing the crash barrier. It appears from the information submitted by the authorities that the repair work in question fell under the responsibility of the Municipality. 22.  On 16 April 2010 the applicants once again requested an expert examination of the road in order to establish any structural problems that may have triggered the accident. They also asked the Administrative Court to find out how many accidents had happened on that road in the past. It appears that the Administrative Court did not obtain the information requested by the applicants. 23.  Relying mainly on the findings in the traffic accident report and the statements of the first applicant, on 27 May 2010 the İzmir Administrative Court found that the first applicant bore sole responsibility for the accident in question, as he had lost control of his car while taking the bend, despite a sign warning of the sharp bend ahead. It therefore rejected the applicants’ claims against the Municipality. 24.  The applicants appealed against that judgment. They argued that the judgment was based solely on the traffic accident report, and that a technical expert opinion was required to be able to ascertain whether the first applicant had lost control of his car as a result of an anomaly in the road. They also argued that although the roadside barrier had been damaged to the point of completely losing its protective capacities, the Administrative Court had not taken that factor into account in assessing the Municipality’s responsibility for the accident. 25.  On 25 January 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the İzmir Administrative Court.