4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Manisa. 5.  On 17 August 1999 the applicant’s daughter, Nesrin Delibaş, lost her life following the collapse of the building where she resided in Düzce as the result of an earthquake (see M. Özel and Others v. Turkey, nos. 14350/05 and 2 others, § 16, 17 November 2015 for further details regarding that earthquake). According to official records, fourteen other people lost their lives as a result of the collapse of the same building. 6.  Shortly after the incident, criminal proceedings were brought against the contractor (H.E.) and the architect (S.D.) of the building in question. On 27 August and 31 August 1999 H.E. and S.D. were questioned by the police and the Düzce public prosecutor, respectively. They denied all accusations in respect of the collapse of the building. 7.  During an expert examination of the remains of the building on 26 August 1999, certain problems were noted with the building’s reinforcing rods. It was also noted that the metal brackets had not been properly fastened to the girders. Apart from H.E. and S.D., against whom charges had already been brought in connection with the collapse of the building, the experts also identified the involvement of T.A., a civil engineer, and İ.Ö., the Head of Technical Services of the Municipality of Düzce (“the Municipality”), in the preparation and authorisation of the respective construction project. 8.  On 31 August 1999 the police questioned İ.Ö., the Head of Technical Services of the Municipality. He denied all accusations in respect of the collapse of the building. 9.  According to another report dated 7 September 1999, the expert examination of the collapsed building revealed that the granulometry of the concrete used in the building was very poor, that the concrete contained a very high proportion of pebbles, that the water-to-cement ratio in the concrete mix was not appropriate and had resulted in the formation of pores in the concrete, and that the ironwork had worked loose from the concrete because the metal brackets had corroded. 10.  On 14 September 1999 the applicant asked to join the proceedings as a civil party. He added that he wished to lodge a criminal complaint against all individuals who had been involved in the construction of the defective building in their different capacities, including the public officials who had authorised its construction and occupation. 11.  On 23 September 1999 the Düzce public prosecutor disjoined the investigation against the Head of Technical Services of the Municipality (İ.Ö.) from those against H.E. and S.D. in view of the special judicial procedures that had to be followed in respect of the prosecution of civil servants under the Law on the Prosecution of Civil Servants and Public Officials (Law no. 4483). 12.  On 24 September 1999 the Düzce public prosecutor’s office filed a bill of indictment with the Düzce Assize Court against H.E. and S.D. in respect of the deaths caused by the collapse of the building in question on 17 August 1999. The public prosecutor accused them of endangering the lives of others by carelessness, negligence or inexperience under Article 383 § 2 of the Turkish Criminal Code in force at the material time (Law no. 765), emphasising in particular the structural shortcomings in the building noted by the experts (see paragraph 7 and 9 above). 13.  At the hearing held on 21 October 1999 the applicant requested the investigation of all municipal officials who had authorised the construction and occupation of the building despite its failure to comply with the relevant technical regulations. Over the course of the criminal proceedings, the applicant repeated this request at least ten times. 14.  According to an expert report added to the criminal case file on 29 April 2001, the following people had responsibility for all private construction undertaken within the municipal boundaries: (i) the contractor, who was responsible for the realisation of the project in compliance with the technical and work safety standards; (ii) the project engineer, who was responsible for all technical aspects of the project, including compliance with all relevant rules and regulations; (iii) the municipal representative, who was responsible for examining the calculations and the plan prepared by the project manager, verifying the compatibility of the project with the regulations in force, and authorising the project; and (iv) the technical implementation officer, who was in charge of inspecting the construction work on behalf of the Municipality. On this basis, the experts concluded that H.E. and S.D. bore 25% and 37.5% responsibility for the collapse of the building. The experts stated that they could not, however, offer opinions on the responsibility of anyone other than the two defendants in the case (H.E. and S.D.). 15.  On 21 June 2001 the Düzce Assize Court held that the statutory period during which H.E. and S.D. could be held criminally liable in connection with a collapse of the building had started running in 1985 – when the last official licence for the building was obtained – and had already expired by the date of the earthquake. The case was accordingly discontinued for having become time‑barred. The applicant appealed. 16.  On 21 October 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. It held that the statutory time-limit was to be calculated from the date on which the building collapsed, that is to say from 17 August 1999, the date on which the offence in question had been committed. 17.  On 14 August 2003 an additional indictment was filed against T.A., the civil engineer who had taken part in the construction of the building in question (see paragraph 7 above). It was noted in the indictment that T.A. had obtained licences to secure the illegal extension of the building subsequent to its construction. 18.  On 11 December 2003 the Düzce Assize Court convicted H.E., S.D. and T.A. as charged and sentenced each of them to 10 months’ imprisonment and a fine, but decided to suspend execution of the sentences under Section 6 of the Execution of Sentences Act (Law no. 647). The applicant appealed against this judgment and once again requested an investigation into the responsibility of the relevant municipal officials in relation to the collapse of the building. 19.  On 6 July 2004 the Court of Cassation once again quashed the first‑instance court’s judgment, this time as the court had not taken any decision as regards the applicant’s request to join the proceedings as a civil party in respect of the case subsequently brought against T.A. 20.  On 5 October 2004 the Düzce Assize Court commissioned a new expert report from the Yıldız Technical University in Istanbul. The expert report subsequently released on 21 April 2005 found that the building in question had collapsed on account of the structural problems noted in the earlier expert reports, as well as its illegal extension subsequent to its construction. It was also stated in the report that the defendants jointly bore 75% of the responsibility for the collapse of the building. The remaining 25% responsibility lay with the Municipality officials on account of their failure to duly inspect the building before issuing it with the necessary permits for occupation. 21.  On 7 June 2005 the Düzce Assize Court convicted H.E., S.D. and T.A. as charged, and sentenced each of them, once again, to 10 months’ imprisonment and a fine. Execution of the sentences was suspended pursuant to Article 51 § 1 of the new Criminal Code (Law no. 5237). Relying on the findings of the later expert report as regards the responsibility of the municipal officials for the collapse of the building, it also decided that a criminal complaint should be filed against the relevant officials with the Düzce public prosecutor’s office. The defendant H.E lodged an appeal against this judgment. 22.  On 5 December 2005 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment for the third time. It found that the assize court had failed to evaluate the case in the light of the new Criminal Code (Law no. 5237) which had entered into force on 1 June 2005. 23.  On 21 February 2007 the Düzce Assize Court decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings in respect of all three of the defendants as the prosecution of the offence in question had become time-barred. 24.  On 23 October 2007 the Court of Cassation held firstly that the decision of the first-instance court, in so far as it concerned S.E. and T.A., was null and void, since the earlier judgment of 7 June 2005 had already become final in their regard as they had not lodged an appeal. It then went on to uphold the decision to discontinue the proceedings in respect of H.E. only. 25.  On 16 August 2000 the applicant, along with his wife and other daughter, instituted compensation proceedings before the Sakarya Administrative Court against the the Ministry of Public Works and Settlement (Bayındırlık ve İskan Bakanlığı), the Düzce governor’s office and the Municipality of Düzce, in respect of the death of their daughter Nesrin Delibaş. The applicant and his wife each claimed 2,000 Turkish liras (TRY) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRY 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Their daughter claimed TRY 500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage only. 26.  On 29 December 2005 the Sakarya Administrative Court commissioned an expert report to determine responsibility on the part of the administration for the collapse of the building. 27.  As regards the findings in the reports adduced to the criminal case file, the experts noted that the quality of the concrete used in the construction and certain structural elements of the building had been below the required standard. The building had, moreover, been illegally extended after its construction. The municipal officials had failed to duly inspect the building during its construction phase or before issuing the necessary permit for its occupation. They had also failed to carry out a soil survey in the area and to identify the potential “disaster zones” in the event of an earthquake, with a view to limiting the height of buildings in such areas. The experts concluded that, in view of such failures, the Municipality had been 50% responsible for the collapse of the building in question. On the other hand, it found that the other two defendants had not been at fault. 28.  Relying on that expert report, on 27 June 2007 the Sakarya Administrative Court partially accepted the applicant’s claims against the Municipality, and awarded him TRY 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage in accordance with his request, plus interest. It also awarded his wife and daughter TRY 1,000 and TRY 500, respectively, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. It rejected their claims in respect of pecuniary damage as being unfounded. 29.  On 14 September 2007 the applicant and his family received a total of TRY 11,371.80 (approximately 6,455 euros (EUR) at the material time) from the Municipality as compensation. In the meantime, the Municipality appealed against the judgment of the Sakarya Administrative Court. 30.  On 23 May 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the lower administrative court.