Nehigijenska,divlja i slična naselja
- Začetnik teme dragan
- Datum pokretanja
bgexplorer
Higher intermediate
- Učlanjen(a)
- 15.01.2008.
- Poruke
- 820
- Pohvaljen
- 322
Ja se nadam da nisi pravila spisak roma za Auschwitz :kafa:ivana-bg":12g6u97z je napisao(la):
Djordje, u pravu si...izvinjavam se za to. povlacim nazad.
A Bgexplorer- boze dete ne lupaj molim te...zaboga zasto to mislis..a ja im pomazem, kao i svi iz orgz. i drzava, trudimo se a ti tako. strasno je sta neki ovde misle. pu pu....sramota!
A Bgexplorer- boze dete ne lupaj molim te...zaboga zasto to mislis..a ja im pomazem, kao i svi iz orgz. i drzava, trudimo se a ti tako. strasno je sta neki ovde misle. pu pu....sramota!
Извор: ПолитикаОдбијају понуђени смештај
Они који нису из престонице мораће да се врате у средине из којих су и дошли, рекао је градоначелник Београда Драган Ђилас
Роми су на протесту носили пароле којима су тражили грађанска права и подржавали Универзијаду (Фото Бета)
Осим двоје стараца и три мајке са петоро деце, житељи нелегалног ромског насеља код Универзитетског села у новобеоградском Блоку 67, које су багери почели да руше у петак због изградње саобраћајнице, одбили су смештај у прихватилиштима. Кров над главом нису прихватили јер, како кажу, не желе да се раздвајају од супруга и „глава породице”. Огорчено су јуче дочекали Владана Ђукића, секретара за социјалну заштиту, и Љиљану Јовчић, секретара за дечју заштиту. Они су у остатак дивљег насеља дошли са представницима Центра за социјални рад који су пописивали Роме са пребивалиштем у Београду.
Поклицима „Идите одавде, није вам место овде”, „Не идемо никуда”, „И ми смо Срби” – њих 365 одговарало је на молбе представника града да се укрцају у аутобусе за превоз до прихватилишта. Образложење да су им тамо обезбеђени храна, нега и здравствена заштита, док им се не нађе трајни смештај, нису прихватили. Срђан Шајн, председник Ромске партије, рекао је да би најбоље решење било да контејнере, у које су планирали да скуће Роме у Бољевцима, преместе на садашњу адресу, код Универзитетског насеља.
– Где год оду линчоваће их. Град је одустао од неколико локација на којима је требало да буду расељени Роми јер су се житељи бунили. Роми нису способни да се баве пољопривредом. Знају да сакупљају и продају секундарне сировине којих по селима нема – тврди Шајн и додаје да на попис чекају већ десет година, а да се власт сетила тек сада, када су остали без домова.
Драган Ђилас, градоначелник, изјавио је после састанка са представницима ОЕБС-а и УНХЦР-а, да ће са овим институцијама град основати радну групу за решење проблема. Становницима дивљег насеља са пребивалиштем у Београду биће обезбеђен адекватан смештај, а они који нису из престонице мораће да се врате у средине из којих су дошли.
– Објавићемо податке о онима који користе несрећу становника нехигијенских насеља за лично богаћење. Наш задатак је да то спречимо и учинимо све како би ромска деца кренула у обданишта и школе и касније имала шансу да постану равноправни део друштва – рекао је Ђилас.
Допративши мајке које су прихватиле смештај у Дом „Дринка Павловић”, Јовчићева је изјавила да се у причу умешао неко коме малишани нису приоритет.
– Понудили смо оно чиме тренутно располажемо, а то су прихватилиште и прихватна станица у Булевару ослобођења 219, Дом „Дринка Павловић” у Косте Главинића 14 и Прихватилиште у Кумодрашкој улици 226а. Слободних места у вртићима на Новом Београду има, тако да родитељи могу да поднесу захтеве Предшколској установи „11. април”. За децу у Дому „Дринка Павловић” обезбеђен је и превоз до школе и натраг – рекла је Јовчић.
На примедбу да се чини како је рушење и пресељење изведено на брзину, без припрема да се обезбеди смештај, због чега су и деца спавала на ливади, Ђилас је за Телевизију Б92 изјавио да је град Ромима одмах понудио исто што им нуди и данас – смештај, који су поједини прихватили да би се потом предомислили под утицајем, како је казао, „својих вођа”.
Градоначелник је био изричит да никоме неће дозволити да, како је рекао, „уцењује град”.
-----------------------------------------------------------
У уџерицама за 50 евра месечно
Енвер Коваци, председник Удружења Рома расељених са Космета, демантовао је изјаве да је он тај који управља овим нехигијенским насељем и наплаћује ренту житељима.
– Немам ништа са тим. Оптужују ме да од њихове кирије купујем мобилне телефоне и аутомобиле. Нормално је да имам телефон који кошта свега 500 динара и комби који сам платио око 500 евра и не знам шта је ту спорно – рекао је Коваци истичући да је све што има стекао радом.
Његов говор је прекинула Ромкиња, избеглица из Хрватске, која је са дететом у наручју истрчала пред новинаре и узвикивала да је истина да им Кораци наплаћује станарину у уџерицама.
– Плаћамо му 50 евра за смештај и 1.500 динара за струју. То је истина, а што нико не сме ништа да каже, друга је прича – рекла је она, али су је комшије прекинуле претњама.
– Ћути. Знаш ли ти шта причаш. Ућуткаће те ако нећеш сама да држиш језик за зубима. Запалиће ти бараку па ћеш видети онда шта је невоља – опрезно су јој се обраћали Роми.
Љ. Перовић - В. Вукасовић
[објављено: 07/04/2009]
Адреса: http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/Drustvo/Odbijaju-ponudjeni-smeshtaj.sr.html
Ambassador
Advanced
Izvor: PeščanikVesna Rakić-Vodinelić i Saša Gajin":78p3ca4o je napisao(la):
Link: http://www.pescanik.net/content/view/2965/171/
Vrlo zanimljiv tekst na tom linku, Kratka istorija pravnog položaja i diskriminacije Roma u nekadašnjoj Jugoslaviji i nekadašnjoj i današnjoj Srbiji.
Takav idiotizam izgleda i samo moze da prodje u turskoj (plus EU), a mozda ce na zalost i u ovoj banana zemlji ali nikad nece u pravim drzavama (USA)!
Moja prava su ugrozena sa ovim barakama po gradu, o tome niko nista... :|
Moja prava su ugrozena sa ovim barakama po gradu, o tome niko nista... :|
relja
Professional
- Učlanjen(a)
- 13.12.2006.
- Poruke
- 16.763
- Pohvaljen
- 18.717
Znači, čovek dodje iz neke vuko*****e (nije bitno odakle), nikada u životu nije izvadio LK, nije dobio JMBG, čak ni zbog socijalne pomoći koju bi 'ladno dobio, znači dođe u glavni grad (ili bilo koji, nema veze), podigne na praznom placu (državnom ili "društenom") neki "zaklon" od dostupnog materijala koji bi se u neom najširem smislu te reči mogao nazvati "kuća", navuče neke stvari do kojih je došao "u posed" tako što su ih drugi bacili ili je ukrao (nema trećeg) i zbog svih propusta države, trule, trome, korumpirane, nesposobne (Republika Srbija) države ta osoba IMA NEKA PRAVA NA NEŠTO ?!?!?!
Apsurd.
Samo se pitam, šta li to više unazadjuje Srbiju - nekompetentni državni aparat i njegovi činovnici ili ljudi i organizacije koji su se posvetili da zaustave svaku akciju koja ima iole potencijala da napravi bar neki mali napredak praveći ovakve apsurde?
Apsurd.
Samo se pitam, šta li to više unazadjuje Srbiju - nekompetentni državni aparat i njegovi činovnici ili ljudi i organizacije koji su se posvetili da zaustave svaku akciju koja ima iole potencijala da napravi bar neki mali napredak praveći ovakve apsurde?
... u stvarnosti je do spora izmedju ÖNERYILDIZ i Turske doslo 1993. i to zato sto je grad Istambul nakon neke eksplozije pokusao da preseli njegovu porodicu sa zemljista za koje je on od 1977. (dakle SEDAMNAEST godina) PLACAO ZEMLJISNE TAKSE i nakon sto je 1982. na podsticaj gradske uprave i ZVANICNO POSTAO vlansik zemljista (1983 the authorities had asked them to fill in a standard form for the declaration of illegal buildings so that their title to the property and land could be validated ). Vesna Rakic Vodinelic je odlican pravnik, a ovo je pravi primer kako izgleda kada neko nastoji po svaku cenu da nadje svoja shvatanja u tudjim redovima.
za sud je pravo na mirno uzivanje povredjeno, ne iseljavanjem i oduzimanjem zemljista, vec usled cinjenice da nije pruzena odgovarajuca naknada iako se radilo o zemljustu na je ÖNERYILDIZ imao pravo.
CASE OF ÖNERYILDIZ v. TURKEY
(Application no. 48939/99)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 June 2002
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
8. The applicant, who is a Turkish national, was born in 1955 and is now living in Çobançeşme (Alibeyköy, Istanbul). At the material time he and the twelve members of his family were living in the slum quarter (gecekondu mahallesi) of Kazım Karabekir in Ümraniye (Istanbul).
A. The Ümraniye site for the storage of household waste
9. Since the beginning of the 1970s a household-refuse tip had been in operation in Hekimbaşı, a slum area adjoining Kazım Karabekir. On 22 January 1960 an easement had been created de facto over the site in question, which belonged to the Forestry Commission (and therefore to the Treasury), in favour of Istanbul City Council (“the city council”) for a term of ninety-nine years. Situated on a slope overlooking a valley, the site spread out over a surface area of approximately 350,000 square metres and was used as a rubbish tip by the districts of Beykoz, Üsküdar, Kadıköy and Ümraniye under the authority and responsibility of the city council and, ultimately, the ministerial authorities.
When the rubbish tip started being used, the area was uninhabited and the closest built-up area was approximately 3.5 km away. However, as the years passed, rudimentary dwellings were illegally built in the zone surrounding the rubbish tip, which ultimately developed into the slums of Ümraniye.
B. The steps taken by Ümraniye District Council
1. In 1989
10. Following the local elections of 26 March 1989 and from 4 December of that year Ümraniye District Council began dumping heaps of earth and rubbish onto the land surrounding the Ümraniye slums in order to redevelop the site of the rubbish tip.
However, on 15 December 1989 M.C. and A.C. – two inhabitants of the Hekimbaşı area – brought proceedings against the district council in the Fourth Division of the Üsküdar District Court to establish title to land. They complained of damage to their plantations and requested the works to be halted. In support of their request, they produced documents showing that M.C. and A.C. had been liable for council tax and property tax since 1977 under tax no. 168900. In 1983 the authorities had asked them to fill in a standard form for the declaration of illegal buildings so that their title to the property and land could be validated (see paragraph 50 below). Following their request, on 21 August 1989, the city council water and mains authority had ordered a water meter to be installed in their house. Furthermore, copies of electricity bills show that M.C. and A.C., as consumers, regularly paid for the water they had used on the basis of the readings taken from a meter installed for that purpose.
11. In the District Court the defendant district council based its defence on the fact that the land claimed by M.C. and A.C. was situated on the waste-collection site; that residence there was contrary to the health regulations; and that their application for validation of their title to the property conferred no rights on them.
In a judgment delivered on 2 May 1991 under case no. 1989/1088, the District Court found for M.C. and A.C., holding that there had been interference with the exercise of their right over the land in question.
However, the Court of Cassation set the judgment aside on 2 March 1992. On 22 October 1992 the District Court followed the Court of Cassation's judgment and dismissed M.C. and A.C.'s claims.
2. In 1991
12. On 9 April 1991 Ümraniye District Council applied to the Third Division of the Üsküdar District Court for experts to be instructed to determine whether the rubbish tip complied with the relevant regulations, in particular Regulation no. 20814 of 14 March 1991 on solid-waste control. A committee was set up for that purpose, composed of a professor of environmental engineering, a land-registry official and a forensic doctor.
According to their report, drawn up on 7 May 1991, the rubbish tip in question did not conform to the technical requirements set forth in Articles 24 to 27, 30 and 38 of Regulation no. 20814 and, accordingly, presented a certain number of dangers liable to give rise to a major health risk for the inhabitants of the valley, particularly those living in the slum areas: no wall or fencing separated the tip from the dwellings situated fifty metres from the mountain of refuse, and the tip was not equipped with collection, composting, recycling or combustion systems; nor had drainage or drainage-water purification systems been installed. The experts concluded from this that the Ümraniye tip “exposed humans and animals and the environment to every form of danger”. In that connection the report, drawing attention first to the fact that some twenty contagious diseases might spread, underlined the following:
“... In any waste-collection site methane, carbon-dioxide and hydrogen-sulphide gases, among others, form. These substances must be collected under supervision and ... burnt. The tip in question is not equipped with such a system, however. If methane is mixed with air in a particular proportion, it can explode. This installation contains no means of preventing an explosion of methane occurring as a result of the decomposition [of the waste]. May God preserve us, as the damage could be very substantial given the neighbouring dwellings. ...”
On 27 May 1991 the city council was made aware of that report and on 7 June 1991 the governor was informed of it and asked to brief the Ministry of Health and the Prime Minister's Environmental Office (“the Environmental Office”).
13. On 9 June 1991 Nurettin Sözen, the mayor of Istanbul, requested the report to be ruled inadmissible on the ground that it had been ordered and prepared without his knowing about it.
14. However, the Environment Council, which had been advised of the same report on 18 June 1991, made a recommendation (no. 09513) urging the Istanbul Governor's Office, the city council and Ümraniye District Council to remedy the problems identified in the present case:
“... The report prepared by the committee of experts indicates that the waste-collection site in question breaches the Environment Act and the Regulation on Solid-Waste Control and consequently poses a health hazard to men and animals. The measures provided for in Articles 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 and 38 of the Regulation on Solid-Waste Control must be implemented at the site of the tip ... I therefore ask for the necessary measures to be implemented ... and for our council to be informed of the outcome.”
15. On 27 August 1992 Şinasi Öktem, the mayor of Ümraniye, applied to the First Division of the Üsküdar District Court for the implementation of temporary measures to prevent the city council and the neighbouring district councils from using the waste-collection site. He requested, inter alia, that no further waste be dumped, that the tip be closed and the damage repaired.
On 3 November 1992 the mayors of Istanbul and Beykoz opposed that request. To that end Mr Sözen submitted, in particular, that a plan to redevelop the site of the tip had been put out to tender and would be implemented during the year 1993.
16. While those proceedings were still pending before the Fourth Civil Division of the Court of Cassation, Ümraniye District Council informed the mayor of Istanbul that from 15 May 1993 no dumping of waste would be authorised.
C. The accident
17. Prior to that date, however, at about 11 a.m. on 28 April 1993 a methane explosion occurred at the site. Following a landslide caused by mounting pressure, the refuse erupted from the mountain of waste and buried some ten slum dwellings situated below it, including the one belonging to the applicant. Thirty-nine people died, including nine members of the Öneryıldız family.
D. The proceedings instituted in the present case
1. The initiative of the Ministry of the Interior
18. Immediately after the accident two members of the municipal police force attempted to establish the facts. After taking evidence from the victims, including the applicant, who explained that he had built his house in 1988, they reported that thirteen huts had been engulfed.
On the same day a crisis committee, set up by the Istanbul Governor's Office, also went to the site and found that the landslide had indeed been caused by a methane-gas explosion.
19. The next day, on 29 April 1993, the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”) ordered the circumstances in which the catastrophe had occurred to be examined by the administrative investigation department (“the investigation department”) in order to determine whether proceedings should be instituted against the two mayors, Mr Sözen and Mr Öktem.
2. The criminal inquiry
20. While those administrative proceedings were under way, on 30 April 1993 the Üsküdar public prosecutor (“the public prosecutor”) went to the scene of the accident, accompanied by a committee of experts composed of three civil-engineering professors from three different universities. In the light of his preliminary observations, he instructed the committee to determine the share of responsibility for the accident attributable to the public authorities and that attributable to the victims.
21. On 6 May 1993 the applicant lodged a complaint with the local police station. He stated that “if it was the authorities that, through their negligence, caused my house to be engulfed and caused my wives' and children's death, I hereby lodge a criminal complaint against the authority or authorities concerned”. The applicant's complaint was added to the investigation file (no. 1993/6102) which had already been opened by the public prosecutor of his own motion.
22. On 14 May 1993 the public prosecutor heard evidence from a number of witnesses and victims of the accident in question. On 18 May 1993 the committee of experts submitted the report ordered by the public prosecutor. The experts confirmed that the landslide – affecting land which had been unstable as it was – could be explained both by the mounting pressure of the gas inside the tip and by the explosion of the tip. Reiterating the obligations and duties on the public authorities under the relevant regulations, the experts concluded that liability for the accident should be attributed as follows:
(i) 2/8 to the Istanbul City Council, which failed to act sufficiently early to prevent the technical problems which already existed when the tip was first created in 1970 and had continued to deteriorate since then, or to indicate to the district councils concerned an alternative waste-collection site, as it was obliged to do under Law no. 3030;
(ii) 2/8 to Ümraniye District Council for implementing a development plan for the area while omitting, contrary to Regulation no. 20814, to provide for a 1,000 metre-wide buffer zone to remain uninhabited, and for attracting illegal dwellings to the region and taking no steps to prevent them from being built, despite the experts' report of 7 May 1991;
(iii) 2/8 to the inhabitants of the slum for endangering the members of their families by settling near a mountain of waste;
(iv) 1/8 to the Ministry of the Environment for failing to monitor the tip effectively in accordance with Regulation no. 20814 on solid-waste control;
(v) 1/8 to the Government for encouraging the spread of this type of illegal dwelling by granting an amnesty on a number of occasions and property titles to the occupants.
23. On 21 May 1993 the public prosecutor declined jurisdiction ratione personae and referred the case to the Governor of Istanbul, considering that it fell within the Prosecution of Civil Servants Act, the application of which was a matter for the administrative council of the province of Istanbul (“the administrative council”). The public prosecutor stated, in his order, that in respect of Istanbul City Council and Ümraniye District Council, the applicable provisions were Articles 230 and 455 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
On 27 May 1993, when the investigative department had completed the preliminary inquiry, the public prosecutor's file was transmitted to the Ministry.
3. The outcome of the administrative inquiry
24. On 27 May 1993, having regard to the conclusions of its own inquiry, the investigative department sought authorisation from the Ministry to commence a criminal investigation in respect of the two mayors implicated in the case.
25. The day after that request was made Ümraniye District Council made the following announcement to the press:
“The sole waste-collection site on the Anatolian side stood in the middle of our district of Ümraniye like an object of silent horror. It has broken its silence and caused death. We knew it and were expecting it. As a district council, we had been hammering at all possible doors for four years to have this waste-collection site removed. We were met with indifference by Istanbul City Council. It abandoned the decontamination works ... after laying two spades of concrete at the inauguration. The ministries and the Government were aware of the facts, but failed to take much notice. We had submitted the matter to the courts and they had found in our favour, but the judicial machinery could not be put into action. ... We are now faced with a responsibility and will all account for this to the inhabitants of Ümraniye...”
26. The authorisation sought by the investigative department was granted on 17 June 1993 and a chief inspector from the Ministry (“the chief inspector”) was accordingly put in charge of the case.
In the light of the investigation file compiled in the present case, the chief inspector took down Mr Sözen and Mr Öktem's defence. The latter stated, among other things, that in December 1989 his district council had begun decontamination works in the Hekimbaşı slum area, but that these had been suspended at the request of two inhabitants of the area (see paragraph 10 above).
27. The chief inspector finalised his report on 9 July 1993. It confirmed the conclusions reached by all the experts instructed hitherto and took account of all the evidence gathered by the public prosecutor. It also mentioned two other scientific opinions sent to the Istanbul Governor's Office in May 1993, one by the Ministry of the Environment and the other by a professor of civil engineering at Boğaziçi University. These two opinions confirmed that the fatal landslide had been caused by the methane explosion. The report also indicated that on 4 May 1993 the inspection department had requested the city council to inform it of the measures actually taken in the light of the expert report of 7 May 1991, and it reproduced Mr Sözen's reply:
“Our city council has both taken the measures necessary to ensure that the old sites can be used in the least harmful way possible until the end of 1993 and completed all the preparatory steps for the construction of one of the biggest and most modern installations ... ever undertaken in our country. We are also installing a temporary waste-collection site satisfying the requisite conditions. Alongside that, rehabilitation works are continuing at former sites [which have run their course]. In short, over the past three years our city council has been studying the problem of waste very seriously... [and], currently, the works are continuing...”
28. The chief inspector concluded, lastly, that the death of twenty-six people and the injuries to eleven others (figures available at the material time) on 28 April 1993 had been caused by the two mayors' failure to take appropriate steps in the exercise of their duties and that they should account for their negligence under Article 230 of the Criminal Code. In spite of, inter alia, the expert report and the recommendation of the Environment Office, they had knowingly breached their respective duties: Mr Öktem because he had failed to comply with his obligation to order the destruction of the illegal huts situated around the rubbish tip, as he was empowered to do under section 18 of Law no. 775, and Mr Sözen because he had refused to comply with the above-mentioned recommendation, had failed to rehabilitate the rubbish tip or order its closure, and had not complied with any of the provisions of section 10 of Law no. 3030, which required him to order the destruction of the slum dwellings in question, if necessary by his own means.
4. Allocation of a subsidised dwelling to the Öneryıldız family
29. In the meantime, the Department of Housing and Rudimentary Dwellings asked the applicant to attend its offices, informing him that, by an order (no. 1739) of 25 May 1993, the city council had allocated him a flat in the subsidised housing complex of Çobançeşme (Eyüp, Alibeyköy). On 18 June 1993 the applicant signed for possession of flat no. 7 in building C-1 of that complex. That transaction was officialised by an order (no. 3927) of 17 September 1993 of the city council. On 13 November 1993 the applicant signed a notarised declaration in lieu of a contract stipulating that the flat in question had been “sold” to him for 125,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL), a quarter of which was payable immediately and the remainder in monthly instalments of TRL 732,844. The applicant paid the first monthly instalment on 9 November 1993. Since then he has been living in the flat in question.
5. The criminal proceedings
30. In an order of 15 July 1993, the administrative council decided, by a majority, on the basis of the chief inspector's report, to institute proceedings against Mr Sözen and Mr Öktem for breach of Article 230 of the Criminal Code.
Mr Sözen and Mr Öktem appealed against that decision to the Supreme Administrative Court, which dismissed their appeal on 18 January 1995. The case file was consequently sent back to the public prosecutor, who, on 30 March 1995, committed both mayors for trial in the Fifth Division of the Istanbul Criminal Court (“the Division”).
31. The proceedings began before the Division on 29 May 1995. At the hearing Mr Sözen stated, among other things, that he could not be expected to have complied with duties which were not incumbent on him or be held solely responsible for a situation which had endured since 1970. Nor could he be blamed for not having rehabilitated the Ümraniye tip when none of the 2,000 sites in Turkey had been rehabilitated; in that connection, relying on a number of measures which had nonetheless been taken by the city council, he argued that the tip could not have been fully redeveloped as long as waste continued to be dumped on it. Lastly, he submitted: “the elements of the offence of negligence in the exercise of duties have not been made out because I did not act with the intention of showing myself to be negligent (sic) and because no causal link can be established” between the incident and any negligence on his part.
Mr Öktem submitted that the groups of dwellings which had been buried dated back to before his election on 26 March 1989 and that since then he had never allowed slum areas to develop. Accusing the Istanbul City Council and Governor's Office of indifference to the problems, Mr Öktem alleged that responsibility for preventing the construction of illegal dwellings lay with the forestry officials and that, in any event, his district council lacked the staff necessary to undertake the destruction of these huts.
32. In a judgment of 4 April 1996, the Division found the two mayors guilty as charged, considering their defence to be unfounded.
In reaching that conclusion, the judges held as follows:
“... although they were aware of the [experts'] report, the two defendants took no proper preventive measures. Just as a person who shoots into a crowd should know that people will die and, accordingly, cannot then claim to have acted without intending to kill, the defendants cannot allege in the present case that they did not intend to neglect their duties. They do not bear the entire responsibility, however. ... They were negligent, as were others. In the instant case the main error consists in building dwellings beneath a refuse tip situated on a hillside and it is the inhabitants of these slum dwellings who are responsible. They should have had regard to the risk that the mountain of rubbish would one day collapse on their heads and that they would suffer damage. They should not have built dwellings fifty metres from the tip. They have paid for that lack of foresight with their lives...”
33. The Division sentenced Mr Sözen and Mr Öktem to the minimum prison sentence provided for in Article 230 of the Criminal Code, namely three months, and to fines of TRL 160,000. Under section 4(1) of Law no. 647, the Division commuted the prison sentences to fines, so the penalties ultimately imposed were fines of TRL 610,000. Satisfied that the defendants would not reoffend, the Division also decided to suspend enforcement of the penalties in accordance with section 6 of the same Law.
34. Both mayors appealed on points of law. They submitted, inter alia, that the Division had exceeded the scope of Article 230 of the Criminal Code in assessing the facts, and had treated the case as one of unintentional homicide within the meaning of Article 455 of that Code.
In a judgment of 10 November 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the Division's judgment.
35. The applicant has apparently never been informed of those proceedings or given evidence to any of the administrative bodies of investigation or the criminal courts; nor does any court decision appear to have been served on him.
6. The applicant's administrative action
36. On 3 September 1993 the applicant sued the mayors of Ümraniye and Istanbul and the Ministries of the Interior and the Environment for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The amount claimed by the applicant was broken down as follows: TRL 150,000,000 in damages for the loss of his dwelling and household goods; TRL 2,550,000,000, 10,000,000, 15,000,000 and 20,000,000 in compensation for the loss of financial support incurred by himself and his three surviving sons, Hüsameddin, Aydın and Halef respectively; and TRL 900,000,000 in non-pecuniary damages for himself and TRL 300,000,000 for each of his three sons.
37. In letters of 16 September and 2 November 1993 respectively, the mayor of Ümraniye and the Minister for the Environment rejected the applicant's claims. The other authorities did not reply.
38. The applicant then sued the four authorities for damages in his own name and on behalf of his three children in the Istanbul Administrative Court (“the court”). He complained that their negligent omissions had resulted in the death of his relatives and the destruction of his house and household goods, and claimed the aforementioned amounts again.
On 4 January 1994 the applicant was granted legal aid.
39. The court gave judgment on 30 November 1995. Basing its decision on the experts' report of 18 May 1993 (see paragraph 22 above), it found a direct causal link between the accident of 28 April 1993 and the contributory negligence of the four authorities in question. Accordingly, it ordered them to pay the applicant and his children TRL 100,000,000 in non-pecuniary damages and TRL 10,000,000 in pecuniary damages (at the material time those sums amounted to approximately 2,077 and 208 euros respectively).
The latter amount, determined on an equitable basis, was limited to the destruction of household goods, save the domestic electrical appliances, which the applicant was not supposed to own. On that point the court appears to have confined its assessment to the authorities' submissions that “these dwellings had neither water nor electricity”. The court dismissed the remainder of the claim; in its view, the applicant could not claim to have been deprived of financial support because he had been partly responsible for the damage incurred and the victims had been young children or housewives who had not been in paid employment such as to contribute to the family's living expenses. The court held that it also ill befitted the applicant to claim compensation for the destruction of his slum dwelling given that, following the accident, he had been allocated a subsidised flat and that, even if the Ümraniye District Council had not exercised its power to destroy the dwelling, nothing could have prevented it from doing so at any time.
The court decided, lastly, not to apply default interest to the damages awarded for non-pecuniary damage.
40. The parties appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Administrative Court, which dismissed their appeal in a judgment of 21 April 1998.
An application for rectification of the judgment, lodged by the City Council, was not successful either, whereupon the judgment became final and was served on the applicant on 10 August 1998.
The damages in question have still not been paid to date.
41. The Ümraniye tip no longer exists today. The local council had it covered with earth and installed air ducts on it. Furthermore, land-use plans are currently being prepared for the areas of Hekimbaşı and Kazım Karabekir. The city council has planted trees on a large area of the former site of the tip and has had sports grounds laid. Two monuments have also been erected there in memory of the victims of the accident of 28 April 1993.
za sud je pravo na mirno uzivanje povredjeno, ne iseljavanjem i oduzimanjem zemljista, vec usled cinjenice da nije pruzena odgovarajuca naknada iako se radilo o zemljustu na je ÖNERYILDIZ imao pravo.
CASE OF ÖNERYILDIZ v. TURKEY
(Application no. 48939/99)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 June 2002
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
8. The applicant, who is a Turkish national, was born in 1955 and is now living in Çobançeşme (Alibeyköy, Istanbul). At the material time he and the twelve members of his family were living in the slum quarter (gecekondu mahallesi) of Kazım Karabekir in Ümraniye (Istanbul).
A. The Ümraniye site for the storage of household waste
9. Since the beginning of the 1970s a household-refuse tip had been in operation in Hekimbaşı, a slum area adjoining Kazım Karabekir. On 22 January 1960 an easement had been created de facto over the site in question, which belonged to the Forestry Commission (and therefore to the Treasury), in favour of Istanbul City Council (“the city council”) for a term of ninety-nine years. Situated on a slope overlooking a valley, the site spread out over a surface area of approximately 350,000 square metres and was used as a rubbish tip by the districts of Beykoz, Üsküdar, Kadıköy and Ümraniye under the authority and responsibility of the city council and, ultimately, the ministerial authorities.
When the rubbish tip started being used, the area was uninhabited and the closest built-up area was approximately 3.5 km away. However, as the years passed, rudimentary dwellings were illegally built in the zone surrounding the rubbish tip, which ultimately developed into the slums of Ümraniye.
B. The steps taken by Ümraniye District Council
1. In 1989
10. Following the local elections of 26 March 1989 and from 4 December of that year Ümraniye District Council began dumping heaps of earth and rubbish onto the land surrounding the Ümraniye slums in order to redevelop the site of the rubbish tip.
However, on 15 December 1989 M.C. and A.C. – two inhabitants of the Hekimbaşı area – brought proceedings against the district council in the Fourth Division of the Üsküdar District Court to establish title to land. They complained of damage to their plantations and requested the works to be halted. In support of their request, they produced documents showing that M.C. and A.C. had been liable for council tax and property tax since 1977 under tax no. 168900. In 1983 the authorities had asked them to fill in a standard form for the declaration of illegal buildings so that their title to the property and land could be validated (see paragraph 50 below). Following their request, on 21 August 1989, the city council water and mains authority had ordered a water meter to be installed in their house. Furthermore, copies of electricity bills show that M.C. and A.C., as consumers, regularly paid for the water they had used on the basis of the readings taken from a meter installed for that purpose.
11. In the District Court the defendant district council based its defence on the fact that the land claimed by M.C. and A.C. was situated on the waste-collection site; that residence there was contrary to the health regulations; and that their application for validation of their title to the property conferred no rights on them.
In a judgment delivered on 2 May 1991 under case no. 1989/1088, the District Court found for M.C. and A.C., holding that there had been interference with the exercise of their right over the land in question.
However, the Court of Cassation set the judgment aside on 2 March 1992. On 22 October 1992 the District Court followed the Court of Cassation's judgment and dismissed M.C. and A.C.'s claims.
2. In 1991
12. On 9 April 1991 Ümraniye District Council applied to the Third Division of the Üsküdar District Court for experts to be instructed to determine whether the rubbish tip complied with the relevant regulations, in particular Regulation no. 20814 of 14 March 1991 on solid-waste control. A committee was set up for that purpose, composed of a professor of environmental engineering, a land-registry official and a forensic doctor.
According to their report, drawn up on 7 May 1991, the rubbish tip in question did not conform to the technical requirements set forth in Articles 24 to 27, 30 and 38 of Regulation no. 20814 and, accordingly, presented a certain number of dangers liable to give rise to a major health risk for the inhabitants of the valley, particularly those living in the slum areas: no wall or fencing separated the tip from the dwellings situated fifty metres from the mountain of refuse, and the tip was not equipped with collection, composting, recycling or combustion systems; nor had drainage or drainage-water purification systems been installed. The experts concluded from this that the Ümraniye tip “exposed humans and animals and the environment to every form of danger”. In that connection the report, drawing attention first to the fact that some twenty contagious diseases might spread, underlined the following:
“... In any waste-collection site methane, carbon-dioxide and hydrogen-sulphide gases, among others, form. These substances must be collected under supervision and ... burnt. The tip in question is not equipped with such a system, however. If methane is mixed with air in a particular proportion, it can explode. This installation contains no means of preventing an explosion of methane occurring as a result of the decomposition [of the waste]. May God preserve us, as the damage could be very substantial given the neighbouring dwellings. ...”
On 27 May 1991 the city council was made aware of that report and on 7 June 1991 the governor was informed of it and asked to brief the Ministry of Health and the Prime Minister's Environmental Office (“the Environmental Office”).
13. On 9 June 1991 Nurettin Sözen, the mayor of Istanbul, requested the report to be ruled inadmissible on the ground that it had been ordered and prepared without his knowing about it.
14. However, the Environment Council, which had been advised of the same report on 18 June 1991, made a recommendation (no. 09513) urging the Istanbul Governor's Office, the city council and Ümraniye District Council to remedy the problems identified in the present case:
“... The report prepared by the committee of experts indicates that the waste-collection site in question breaches the Environment Act and the Regulation on Solid-Waste Control and consequently poses a health hazard to men and animals. The measures provided for in Articles 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 and 38 of the Regulation on Solid-Waste Control must be implemented at the site of the tip ... I therefore ask for the necessary measures to be implemented ... and for our council to be informed of the outcome.”
15. On 27 August 1992 Şinasi Öktem, the mayor of Ümraniye, applied to the First Division of the Üsküdar District Court for the implementation of temporary measures to prevent the city council and the neighbouring district councils from using the waste-collection site. He requested, inter alia, that no further waste be dumped, that the tip be closed and the damage repaired.
On 3 November 1992 the mayors of Istanbul and Beykoz opposed that request. To that end Mr Sözen submitted, in particular, that a plan to redevelop the site of the tip had been put out to tender and would be implemented during the year 1993.
16. While those proceedings were still pending before the Fourth Civil Division of the Court of Cassation, Ümraniye District Council informed the mayor of Istanbul that from 15 May 1993 no dumping of waste would be authorised.
C. The accident
17. Prior to that date, however, at about 11 a.m. on 28 April 1993 a methane explosion occurred at the site. Following a landslide caused by mounting pressure, the refuse erupted from the mountain of waste and buried some ten slum dwellings situated below it, including the one belonging to the applicant. Thirty-nine people died, including nine members of the Öneryıldız family.
D. The proceedings instituted in the present case
1. The initiative of the Ministry of the Interior
18. Immediately after the accident two members of the municipal police force attempted to establish the facts. After taking evidence from the victims, including the applicant, who explained that he had built his house in 1988, they reported that thirteen huts had been engulfed.
On the same day a crisis committee, set up by the Istanbul Governor's Office, also went to the site and found that the landslide had indeed been caused by a methane-gas explosion.
19. The next day, on 29 April 1993, the Ministry of the Interior (“the Ministry”) ordered the circumstances in which the catastrophe had occurred to be examined by the administrative investigation department (“the investigation department”) in order to determine whether proceedings should be instituted against the two mayors, Mr Sözen and Mr Öktem.
2. The criminal inquiry
20. While those administrative proceedings were under way, on 30 April 1993 the Üsküdar public prosecutor (“the public prosecutor”) went to the scene of the accident, accompanied by a committee of experts composed of three civil-engineering professors from three different universities. In the light of his preliminary observations, he instructed the committee to determine the share of responsibility for the accident attributable to the public authorities and that attributable to the victims.
21. On 6 May 1993 the applicant lodged a complaint with the local police station. He stated that “if it was the authorities that, through their negligence, caused my house to be engulfed and caused my wives' and children's death, I hereby lodge a criminal complaint against the authority or authorities concerned”. The applicant's complaint was added to the investigation file (no. 1993/6102) which had already been opened by the public prosecutor of his own motion.
22. On 14 May 1993 the public prosecutor heard evidence from a number of witnesses and victims of the accident in question. On 18 May 1993 the committee of experts submitted the report ordered by the public prosecutor. The experts confirmed that the landslide – affecting land which had been unstable as it was – could be explained both by the mounting pressure of the gas inside the tip and by the explosion of the tip. Reiterating the obligations and duties on the public authorities under the relevant regulations, the experts concluded that liability for the accident should be attributed as follows:
(i) 2/8 to the Istanbul City Council, which failed to act sufficiently early to prevent the technical problems which already existed when the tip was first created in 1970 and had continued to deteriorate since then, or to indicate to the district councils concerned an alternative waste-collection site, as it was obliged to do under Law no. 3030;
(ii) 2/8 to Ümraniye District Council for implementing a development plan for the area while omitting, contrary to Regulation no. 20814, to provide for a 1,000 metre-wide buffer zone to remain uninhabited, and for attracting illegal dwellings to the region and taking no steps to prevent them from being built, despite the experts' report of 7 May 1991;
(iii) 2/8 to the inhabitants of the slum for endangering the members of their families by settling near a mountain of waste;
(iv) 1/8 to the Ministry of the Environment for failing to monitor the tip effectively in accordance with Regulation no. 20814 on solid-waste control;
(v) 1/8 to the Government for encouraging the spread of this type of illegal dwelling by granting an amnesty on a number of occasions and property titles to the occupants.
23. On 21 May 1993 the public prosecutor declined jurisdiction ratione personae and referred the case to the Governor of Istanbul, considering that it fell within the Prosecution of Civil Servants Act, the application of which was a matter for the administrative council of the province of Istanbul (“the administrative council”). The public prosecutor stated, in his order, that in respect of Istanbul City Council and Ümraniye District Council, the applicable provisions were Articles 230 and 455 § 2 of the Criminal Code.
On 27 May 1993, when the investigative department had completed the preliminary inquiry, the public prosecutor's file was transmitted to the Ministry.
3. The outcome of the administrative inquiry
24. On 27 May 1993, having regard to the conclusions of its own inquiry, the investigative department sought authorisation from the Ministry to commence a criminal investigation in respect of the two mayors implicated in the case.
25. The day after that request was made Ümraniye District Council made the following announcement to the press:
“The sole waste-collection site on the Anatolian side stood in the middle of our district of Ümraniye like an object of silent horror. It has broken its silence and caused death. We knew it and were expecting it. As a district council, we had been hammering at all possible doors for four years to have this waste-collection site removed. We were met with indifference by Istanbul City Council. It abandoned the decontamination works ... after laying two spades of concrete at the inauguration. The ministries and the Government were aware of the facts, but failed to take much notice. We had submitted the matter to the courts and they had found in our favour, but the judicial machinery could not be put into action. ... We are now faced with a responsibility and will all account for this to the inhabitants of Ümraniye...”
26. The authorisation sought by the investigative department was granted on 17 June 1993 and a chief inspector from the Ministry (“the chief inspector”) was accordingly put in charge of the case.
In the light of the investigation file compiled in the present case, the chief inspector took down Mr Sözen and Mr Öktem's defence. The latter stated, among other things, that in December 1989 his district council had begun decontamination works in the Hekimbaşı slum area, but that these had been suspended at the request of two inhabitants of the area (see paragraph 10 above).
27. The chief inspector finalised his report on 9 July 1993. It confirmed the conclusions reached by all the experts instructed hitherto and took account of all the evidence gathered by the public prosecutor. It also mentioned two other scientific opinions sent to the Istanbul Governor's Office in May 1993, one by the Ministry of the Environment and the other by a professor of civil engineering at Boğaziçi University. These two opinions confirmed that the fatal landslide had been caused by the methane explosion. The report also indicated that on 4 May 1993 the inspection department had requested the city council to inform it of the measures actually taken in the light of the expert report of 7 May 1991, and it reproduced Mr Sözen's reply:
“Our city council has both taken the measures necessary to ensure that the old sites can be used in the least harmful way possible until the end of 1993 and completed all the preparatory steps for the construction of one of the biggest and most modern installations ... ever undertaken in our country. We are also installing a temporary waste-collection site satisfying the requisite conditions. Alongside that, rehabilitation works are continuing at former sites [which have run their course]. In short, over the past three years our city council has been studying the problem of waste very seriously... [and], currently, the works are continuing...”
28. The chief inspector concluded, lastly, that the death of twenty-six people and the injuries to eleven others (figures available at the material time) on 28 April 1993 had been caused by the two mayors' failure to take appropriate steps in the exercise of their duties and that they should account for their negligence under Article 230 of the Criminal Code. In spite of, inter alia, the expert report and the recommendation of the Environment Office, they had knowingly breached their respective duties: Mr Öktem because he had failed to comply with his obligation to order the destruction of the illegal huts situated around the rubbish tip, as he was empowered to do under section 18 of Law no. 775, and Mr Sözen because he had refused to comply with the above-mentioned recommendation, had failed to rehabilitate the rubbish tip or order its closure, and had not complied with any of the provisions of section 10 of Law no. 3030, which required him to order the destruction of the slum dwellings in question, if necessary by his own means.
4. Allocation of a subsidised dwelling to the Öneryıldız family
29. In the meantime, the Department of Housing and Rudimentary Dwellings asked the applicant to attend its offices, informing him that, by an order (no. 1739) of 25 May 1993, the city council had allocated him a flat in the subsidised housing complex of Çobançeşme (Eyüp, Alibeyköy). On 18 June 1993 the applicant signed for possession of flat no. 7 in building C-1 of that complex. That transaction was officialised by an order (no. 3927) of 17 September 1993 of the city council. On 13 November 1993 the applicant signed a notarised declaration in lieu of a contract stipulating that the flat in question had been “sold” to him for 125,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL), a quarter of which was payable immediately and the remainder in monthly instalments of TRL 732,844. The applicant paid the first monthly instalment on 9 November 1993. Since then he has been living in the flat in question.
5. The criminal proceedings
30. In an order of 15 July 1993, the administrative council decided, by a majority, on the basis of the chief inspector's report, to institute proceedings against Mr Sözen and Mr Öktem for breach of Article 230 of the Criminal Code.
Mr Sözen and Mr Öktem appealed against that decision to the Supreme Administrative Court, which dismissed their appeal on 18 January 1995. The case file was consequently sent back to the public prosecutor, who, on 30 March 1995, committed both mayors for trial in the Fifth Division of the Istanbul Criminal Court (“the Division”).
31. The proceedings began before the Division on 29 May 1995. At the hearing Mr Sözen stated, among other things, that he could not be expected to have complied with duties which were not incumbent on him or be held solely responsible for a situation which had endured since 1970. Nor could he be blamed for not having rehabilitated the Ümraniye tip when none of the 2,000 sites in Turkey had been rehabilitated; in that connection, relying on a number of measures which had nonetheless been taken by the city council, he argued that the tip could not have been fully redeveloped as long as waste continued to be dumped on it. Lastly, he submitted: “the elements of the offence of negligence in the exercise of duties have not been made out because I did not act with the intention of showing myself to be negligent (sic) and because no causal link can be established” between the incident and any negligence on his part.
Mr Öktem submitted that the groups of dwellings which had been buried dated back to before his election on 26 March 1989 and that since then he had never allowed slum areas to develop. Accusing the Istanbul City Council and Governor's Office of indifference to the problems, Mr Öktem alleged that responsibility for preventing the construction of illegal dwellings lay with the forestry officials and that, in any event, his district council lacked the staff necessary to undertake the destruction of these huts.
32. In a judgment of 4 April 1996, the Division found the two mayors guilty as charged, considering their defence to be unfounded.
In reaching that conclusion, the judges held as follows:
“... although they were aware of the [experts'] report, the two defendants took no proper preventive measures. Just as a person who shoots into a crowd should know that people will die and, accordingly, cannot then claim to have acted without intending to kill, the defendants cannot allege in the present case that they did not intend to neglect their duties. They do not bear the entire responsibility, however. ... They were negligent, as were others. In the instant case the main error consists in building dwellings beneath a refuse tip situated on a hillside and it is the inhabitants of these slum dwellings who are responsible. They should have had regard to the risk that the mountain of rubbish would one day collapse on their heads and that they would suffer damage. They should not have built dwellings fifty metres from the tip. They have paid for that lack of foresight with their lives...”
33. The Division sentenced Mr Sözen and Mr Öktem to the minimum prison sentence provided for in Article 230 of the Criminal Code, namely three months, and to fines of TRL 160,000. Under section 4(1) of Law no. 647, the Division commuted the prison sentences to fines, so the penalties ultimately imposed were fines of TRL 610,000. Satisfied that the defendants would not reoffend, the Division also decided to suspend enforcement of the penalties in accordance with section 6 of the same Law.
34. Both mayors appealed on points of law. They submitted, inter alia, that the Division had exceeded the scope of Article 230 of the Criminal Code in assessing the facts, and had treated the case as one of unintentional homicide within the meaning of Article 455 of that Code.
In a judgment of 10 November 1997 the Court of Cassation upheld the Division's judgment.
35. The applicant has apparently never been informed of those proceedings or given evidence to any of the administrative bodies of investigation or the criminal courts; nor does any court decision appear to have been served on him.
6. The applicant's administrative action
36. On 3 September 1993 the applicant sued the mayors of Ümraniye and Istanbul and the Ministries of the Interior and the Environment for both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages. The amount claimed by the applicant was broken down as follows: TRL 150,000,000 in damages for the loss of his dwelling and household goods; TRL 2,550,000,000, 10,000,000, 15,000,000 and 20,000,000 in compensation for the loss of financial support incurred by himself and his three surviving sons, Hüsameddin, Aydın and Halef respectively; and TRL 900,000,000 in non-pecuniary damages for himself and TRL 300,000,000 for each of his three sons.
37. In letters of 16 September and 2 November 1993 respectively, the mayor of Ümraniye and the Minister for the Environment rejected the applicant's claims. The other authorities did not reply.
38. The applicant then sued the four authorities for damages in his own name and on behalf of his three children in the Istanbul Administrative Court (“the court”). He complained that their negligent omissions had resulted in the death of his relatives and the destruction of his house and household goods, and claimed the aforementioned amounts again.
On 4 January 1994 the applicant was granted legal aid.
39. The court gave judgment on 30 November 1995. Basing its decision on the experts' report of 18 May 1993 (see paragraph 22 above), it found a direct causal link between the accident of 28 April 1993 and the contributory negligence of the four authorities in question. Accordingly, it ordered them to pay the applicant and his children TRL 100,000,000 in non-pecuniary damages and TRL 10,000,000 in pecuniary damages (at the material time those sums amounted to approximately 2,077 and 208 euros respectively).
The latter amount, determined on an equitable basis, was limited to the destruction of household goods, save the domestic electrical appliances, which the applicant was not supposed to own. On that point the court appears to have confined its assessment to the authorities' submissions that “these dwellings had neither water nor electricity”. The court dismissed the remainder of the claim; in its view, the applicant could not claim to have been deprived of financial support because he had been partly responsible for the damage incurred and the victims had been young children or housewives who had not been in paid employment such as to contribute to the family's living expenses. The court held that it also ill befitted the applicant to claim compensation for the destruction of his slum dwelling given that, following the accident, he had been allocated a subsidised flat and that, even if the Ümraniye District Council had not exercised its power to destroy the dwelling, nothing could have prevented it from doing so at any time.
The court decided, lastly, not to apply default interest to the damages awarded for non-pecuniary damage.
40. The parties appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Administrative Court, which dismissed their appeal in a judgment of 21 April 1998.
An application for rectification of the judgment, lodged by the City Council, was not successful either, whereupon the judgment became final and was served on the applicant on 10 August 1998.
The damages in question have still not been paid to date.
41. The Ümraniye tip no longer exists today. The local council had it covered with earth and installed air ducts on it. Furthermore, land-use plans are currently being prepared for the areas of Hekimbaşı and Kazım Karabekir. The city council has planted trees on a large area of the former site of the tip and has had sports grounds laid. Two monuments have also been erected there in memory of the victims of the accident of 28 April 1993.
o cemu ti pricaj, majketi, ljudi u kaludjerici su gradili na svom zemljistu, bas kao i lik iz turske, pri cemu je lik iz turske jos bio i legalizovao svoju kucu o uredno placao poreze 17 godina pre nego sto je gradska uprava pokusala da ga iseli.Milance":rrrj53qn je napisao(la):
Pa Kaludjerica nije izgradjana na udarnim lokacijama kao sto su centar grada i nbg biznis deo, i nebezbedan deo ispod gazele, a uostalom to su kuce a ne stracare i djubriste...velika je razlika izmedju tog naselja i romskog naselja...da ne pricam da pola njih nema ni prebivaliste u beogradu..
Ambassador
Advanced
Baš me razočarala Vesna Rakić-Vodinelić... Nevertheless, ostatak teksta je vrlo zanimljiv, ali je malo dugačak da bih ga stavljao ovde. Jedan deo se odnosi na ono što si relja spomenuo oko ličnih karti, zbog čega oni ne mogu da ih dobiju itsl. Drugo, koliko znam u Sovjetskom savezu je postojala zabrana šetanja iz gradova u gradove, i za to su ti praktično trebali pasoši.. Možda grešim, ne?
I da, mislim da oni imaju makar neka prava, a minimum koji moraju da imaju je pravo na dostojanstvo.
Dalje, problemi koje ja imam sa ovim rušenjem.
Vrlo su revnosni kad su ovakvi slučajevi u pitanju, ali apoteka u Vojvođanskoj, vile na krovovima u centru grada i tome slično?
Da se ruše kuće dok su im sve stvari unutra, i na takav način je stvarno "malo" preterano.
Takođe, način na koji se svemu tome prilazi, aha, ovde su pare, ovo ćemo tako da radimo, ako investitor hoće tako, radićemo tako, sve podređeno progresu, ekonomskom napretku, oplodnji kapitala.. Ima jedan dobar Zagin tekst, stari tekst doduše još za vreme Đorđa Stanojevića, naslovljen Idolatrija novca u "demokratskoj" tranziciji. Vrlo je kratak, a vrlo zanimljiv i ima ton koji se vrlo vrlo retko čuje u Srbiji.
http://www.beobuild.rs/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=10573#p10573
I tako dalje.. i tako dalje.. Opet se ništa neće promeniti..
I da, mislim da oni imaju makar neka prava, a minimum koji moraju da imaju je pravo na dostojanstvo.
Dalje, problemi koje ja imam sa ovim rušenjem.
Vrlo su revnosni kad su ovakvi slučajevi u pitanju, ali apoteka u Vojvođanskoj, vile na krovovima u centru grada i tome slično?
Da se ruše kuće dok su im sve stvari unutra, i na takav način je stvarno "malo" preterano.
Slažem se po jednom stvari, mnogo je nebezbednije imati izgrađenun kućerdaču od 3-4 sprata na Medakoviću XY ispod dalekovoda, nego te favele ispod Gazele. A kućerdača tamo stoji li stoji - ili novoizgrađene zgrade u okolini aerodroma.ivana-bg":hctj6lnr je napisao(la):
Takođe, način na koji se svemu tome prilazi, aha, ovde su pare, ovo ćemo tako da radimo, ako investitor hoće tako, radićemo tako, sve podređeno progresu, ekonomskom napretku, oplodnji kapitala.. Ima jedan dobar Zagin tekst, stari tekst doduše još za vreme Đorđa Stanojevića, naslovljen Idolatrija novca u "demokratskoj" tranziciji. Vrlo je kratak, a vrlo zanimljiv i ima ton koji se vrlo vrlo retko čuje u Srbiji.
http://www.beobuild.rs/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=10573#p10573
I tako dalje.. i tako dalje.. Opet se ništa neće promeniti..
bigvlada
Advanced
Itekako nas gledaju šta radimo.
Slums pose test for Belgrade over gypsies
By Neil MacDonald in Belgrade
Published: April 8 2009 13:22 | Last updated: April 8 2009 13:22
At a glance, the cardboard-roofed shanty town looks like many others dotted around eastern Europe. But a banner by the main road proclaims: “We are Serbian Roma. We want a roof over our heads. Long live Serbia.”
In theory, now should be the moment to demand better conditions. Until July the Balkan country holds the presidency of the Decade of Roma, an organisation of 12 European states promoting social and economic “inclusion” for the continent’s most widespread ethnic minority.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Slovak police exposed over gypsy abuse - Apr-08
Roma bear brunt of Hungary’s downturn - Feb-19
Serbia seeks EU help to soften blow of crisis - Mar-16
But as Serbian officials have discovered, international advocacy on behalf of the Roma remains far easier than eliminating urban poverty – especially for a group that largely declines to be registered with state institutions.
“Serbia is pushing the Roma agenda to the level of the European Union,” said Bozidar Djelic, deputy prime minister for EU integration. “But the biggest test is the Roma settlements right in the heart of Belgrade.”
Last Friday, however, police moved in with bulldozers to start clearing away the illegal shacks which block the way into the athletes’ village for the Universiade, an international student sporting competition in July. About 30 families lost their makeshift homes, while 360 more families expect to be pushed out within two weeks, protestors told the Financial Times.
Instead of celebrating the International Day of the Roma on Wednesday, the slum dwellers said they would march on parliament to protest.
“We are citizens of this country. And if we’re not, the government should say so, and immediately we would leave,” said a man from the settlement who gave only his first name, Rasim.
Belgrade’s mayor, Dragan Djilas, said a few hundred people on “usurped land” must not prevent urban development or “hold hostage” the whole city of 2m.
The Roma – often called gypsies – squat in more than 60 illegal settlements around the former Yugoslav capital. They always resist moving to new accommodation, while other citizens reject them as neighbours.
When the city last week put pre-fabricated container houses on the outskirts nearly 30 km away, farmers blocked the road and set the containers on fire.
Similar problems arise in most states with a sizable Roma minority. EU officials played down any suggestion of human rights violations.
Belgrade had welcomed the year-long Decade presidency as a good chance to show strong European values, despite the lingering political problems that have kept EU integration plans stalled for years.
“Serbia, thank God, is not a country with violence against Roma except in isolated cases,” Mr Djelic said. “But we do have insufficient care.”
Despite severe budget cuts, the government hoped to boost assistance for the community from the current “meagre” €2m per year to €10m by 2012, counting on support from European development banks, he said.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/339d0b92-2424-11de-9a01-00144feabdc0.html
Slums pose test for Belgrade over gypsies
By Neil MacDonald in Belgrade
Published: April 8 2009 13:22 | Last updated: April 8 2009 13:22
At a glance, the cardboard-roofed shanty town looks like many others dotted around eastern Europe. But a banner by the main road proclaims: “We are Serbian Roma. We want a roof over our heads. Long live Serbia.”
In theory, now should be the moment to demand better conditions. Until July the Balkan country holds the presidency of the Decade of Roma, an organisation of 12 European states promoting social and economic “inclusion” for the continent’s most widespread ethnic minority.
EDITOR’S CHOICE
Slovak police exposed over gypsy abuse - Apr-08
Roma bear brunt of Hungary’s downturn - Feb-19
Serbia seeks EU help to soften blow of crisis - Mar-16
But as Serbian officials have discovered, international advocacy on behalf of the Roma remains far easier than eliminating urban poverty – especially for a group that largely declines to be registered with state institutions.
“Serbia is pushing the Roma agenda to the level of the European Union,” said Bozidar Djelic, deputy prime minister for EU integration. “But the biggest test is the Roma settlements right in the heart of Belgrade.”
Last Friday, however, police moved in with bulldozers to start clearing away the illegal shacks which block the way into the athletes’ village for the Universiade, an international student sporting competition in July. About 30 families lost their makeshift homes, while 360 more families expect to be pushed out within two weeks, protestors told the Financial Times.
Instead of celebrating the International Day of the Roma on Wednesday, the slum dwellers said they would march on parliament to protest.
“We are citizens of this country. And if we’re not, the government should say so, and immediately we would leave,” said a man from the settlement who gave only his first name, Rasim.
Belgrade’s mayor, Dragan Djilas, said a few hundred people on “usurped land” must not prevent urban development or “hold hostage” the whole city of 2m.
The Roma – often called gypsies – squat in more than 60 illegal settlements around the former Yugoslav capital. They always resist moving to new accommodation, while other citizens reject them as neighbours.
When the city last week put pre-fabricated container houses on the outskirts nearly 30 km away, farmers blocked the road and set the containers on fire.
Similar problems arise in most states with a sizable Roma minority. EU officials played down any suggestion of human rights violations.
Belgrade had welcomed the year-long Decade presidency as a good chance to show strong European values, despite the lingering political problems that have kept EU integration plans stalled for years.
“Serbia, thank God, is not a country with violence against Roma except in isolated cases,” Mr Djelic said. “But we do have insufficient care.”
Despite severe budget cuts, the government hoped to boost assistance for the community from the current “meagre” €2m per year to €10m by 2012, counting on support from European development banks, he said.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/339d0b92-2424-11de-9a01-00144feabdc0.html
Ima novinara stranaca koje sve cesce salju iz npr.nekih evr.zemalja, ili dosta njih dolazi i iz amerike i onda oni pisu za svoje agencije sa terena, sto bi rekli a ovi im placaju za poslic "novinara" naravno. E sad, ja sam upoznala jednog takvog mladog amerikanca. izuzetno pametan decko ali naravno ne moze da shvati celu situaciju ovde nakon mesec dana..ma ni posle godinu, i on je tako izabrao da pise o nbg i onda bi se raspitivao kod nas sta gde kako, pa bi malo isao do nbg (ne zna srp.sto mu otezava posao tj.da udje u srz problema i da upozna nase ljude) i tako bi skrojio nesto za clanak za njegove tamo i to je to. Mene uvek zanima bas upravo iz ovakvih razloga podloga nekog clanka i ko ga pise, njegova biografija. Ovo sto pricam je nevezano za clanak gore. Samo zelim da skrenem paznju na.. ..
Elem, malo pre sam bila na b92 i cesto citam komentare vezane za bilo koju vest...i tako nadjem vezano za ovu temu komentare nekih ljudi koji vredjaju Djialasa kao u fazonu nije on bio ni do Lajkovca a vamo prica kako ovakvi problemi u EU takodje postoje..da li je on normalan, to ne postoji u EU. Takvi komentari bas znaju da me iznerviraju pa se cesto pitam da li ovi nasi sugradjani su pali sa kruske ili i oni sami nisu bili ni do Lajkovca.. Pogotovo sto sam bila svedok u akciji eu i rumunske policije koji su "hvatali" rome po nekim Eu prestonicama gde oni prose i narusavaju red a pritom nemaju papire itd.. Znaci svojim ocima sam videla kako se EU policija ophodi prema njima i sta gde kako...nasa policija je u ovom slucaju zlato, a i vlada. Znam da ce me milion ljudi ispljuvati kako ovo sto mi radimo ovde nema nigde, ali ima itekako i to u EU. Samo bih volela da se bavite ovim poslom koji sam ja radila pa da i sami se licno uverite i dozivite sve to a ne da vam neko prepricava a vi da sumnjicavite.. Tretman, zasluzen ili ne je ispod nivoa koji EU nama prodaje kako da se ophodimo prema manjinama, drugim rasama itd...Amerika po meni i dalje prednjaci u tome (ispred evrope naravno, ne nas srba
).
Elem, malo pre sam bila na b92 i cesto citam komentare vezane za bilo koju vest...i tako nadjem vezano za ovu temu komentare nekih ljudi koji vredjaju Djialasa kao u fazonu nije on bio ni do Lajkovca a vamo prica kako ovakvi problemi u EU takodje postoje..da li je on normalan, to ne postoji u EU. Takvi komentari bas znaju da me iznerviraju pa se cesto pitam da li ovi nasi sugradjani su pali sa kruske ili i oni sami nisu bili ni do Lajkovca.. Pogotovo sto sam bila svedok u akciji eu i rumunske policije koji su "hvatali" rome po nekim Eu prestonicama gde oni prose i narusavaju red a pritom nemaju papire itd.. Znaci svojim ocima sam videla kako se EU policija ophodi prema njima i sta gde kako...nasa policija je u ovom slucaju zlato, a i vlada. Znam da ce me milion ljudi ispljuvati kako ovo sto mi radimo ovde nema nigde, ali ima itekako i to u EU. Samo bih volela da se bavite ovim poslom koji sam ja radila pa da i sami se licno uverite i dozivite sve to a ne da vam neko prepricava a vi da sumnjicavite.. Tretman, zasluzen ili ne je ispod nivoa koji EU nama prodaje kako da se ophodimo prema manjinama, drugim rasama itd...Amerika po meni i dalje prednjaci u tome (ispred evrope naravno, ne nas srba
).
jovanovm
Advanced
Odlučio sam da ne komentarišem ovu temu, da ne raspalim trolifikatorku, ali da se razumemo, ovo nije rasno motivisana akcija, već ekonomski. Ne jure se Romi zato što su Romi, nego zato što žive u faveli nasred grada.
Mislim da je akcija pravedna, ali da nije pametna. Postojao je bolji način da se ovo obavi, ali kao i ova akcija kao i ostale ove vlasti pokazuje nedostatak stručnosti u upravljačkom sistemu. Nepotizam i korupcija konačno pokazuju zašto ne funkcionišu kao državni sistem - kad stvarno treba da se rešavaju problemi, nema kadrova.
Mislim da je akcija pravedna, ali da nije pametna. Postojao je bolji način da se ovo obavi, ali kao i ova akcija kao i ostale ove vlasti pokazuje nedostatak stručnosti u upravljačkom sistemu. Nepotizam i korupcija konačno pokazuju zašto ne funkcionišu kao državni sistem - kad stvarno treba da se rešavaju problemi, nema kadrova.
jovanovm
Advanced
I jos jedna (vezana) vest:
Izvor: http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2009&mm=04&dd=10&nav_id=354824
Naravno da nije rasno motivisana,i ja sam htela da ukazem da se i tamo policija i grad ponasaju slicno bar kad su Romi bili tada u pitanju (ne zato sto su Romi vec zato sto se ne uklapaju u njihov nacin zivota u gradovima i nisu znali kako drugacije da ih "pojure") na lokacijama gde ne treba da budu. A mi opet imamo neke minuse ali Srbija uci od EU i drugih pa i moze nesto da joj se i oprosti u procesu.jovanovm":2fhav86r je napisao(la):
A sto se korupcije i nepotizma tice--bolje da i ne pocinjemo o tome..To je Srbiji najveci problem. Izrazeniji nego bilo gde drugde, i ostro je koci da bude ono sto treba. Kod nas vlada korupcija i kad zelis da kupis karte za pozoriste, a za nestrucne kadrove i da ne govorim ovde jer nije ni mesto a odlepila bih sta imam da kazem na tu temu...Kod nas vise vole da zaposle ljude koji studiraju preko 10godina (i dalje su apsolventi, nisu ni svrseni studenti a na odlicnim su pozicijama) i nemaju nikakav CV nego ...itd itd...
bigvlada
Advanced
rеšenje iz Jute, ova zgrada je napravljena od polovnih brodskih kontejnera
Čudo šta malo šminke može da uradi.
Čudo šta malo šminke može da uradi.