CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 octobre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 30 October 2023   SECOND SECTION Application no. 14350/22 Ignas JONKUS against Lithuania lodged on 28 February 2022 communicated on 12 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that he was severely injured while performing military service (he is 95 per cent disabled) and that the authorities did not properly investigate the alleged accident. In 2010 the applicant was recognised fit for professional military service and afterwards started it. In March 2013 the military medical commission established that the applicant was no longer fit for military service on health grounds, and the same month he was dismissed. The applicant started proceedings seeking to establish that his health had been impaired due to injury and trauma sustained in 2012, during a military exercise. After several military medical expert reports, the applicant’s claim was dismissed by the military authorities. In 2014 the applicant withdrew his claim submitted to court against the finding of the army’s internal investigation commission that the military had not been at fault in relation to the deterioration of the applicant’s health. Subsequently, a prosecutor refused the applicant’s request to start proceedings to defend the public interest in connection with the applicant’s claim that he should be awarded compensation on account of his health impairment. The prosecutor’s decision was upheld by the courts. The applicant then underwent treatment in several hospitals. In 2020 the internal investigation commission at the Ministry of Defence concluded that the applicant’s health impairment was unrelated to any failure on the part of the State. By a final ruling of 1 December 2022 the Supreme Administrative Court found that the Ministry of Defence had reached a reasoned decision finding that no objective data existed that the deterioration of the applicant’s health had been the consequence of any acts or failure to act by the military. The applicant complains, under various Articles of the Convention, that the army had not protected his health when he was performing military service. He also complains that his health impairment had not been properly and objectively investigated, inter alia because of the authorities’ unwillingness to order an independent expert examination so that the accountability of the army could be established.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? In particular, has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the alleged failure of the authorities to protect the applicant’s health and/or to provide the requisite medical assistance to the applicant, who was a soldier under the responsibility of the Lithuanian army (see Chember v. Russia , no.   7188/03, §   50, ECHR 2008, and Akkoyunlu v. Turkey , no.   7505/06, §§   33 and 34, 13   October 2015; see also, mutatis mutandis , Banel v. Lithuania , no.   14326/11, §§   62-65, 18   June 2013 and Mecit and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no.   11967/12, §§   55 and 56, 30   June 2020)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural obligations in case of an assertion of inhuman or degrading treatment (see Labita v.   Italy [GC], no.   26772/95, §   131, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation by the domestic authorities in the present case in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see also Baklanov v. Ukraine , no.   44425/08, §§   67-68, 24 October 2013)?   In particular:   Did the domestic authorities make a serious attempt to establish the circumstances surrounding the damage to the applicant’s health? Were the investigation’s conclusions based on a thorough, objective and impartial analysis of all relevant elements? Are the domestic authorities’ decisions adequately reasoned and do they take into account the applicant’s submissions made to those authorities (see, mutatis mutandis , Mustafa Tunç and Fecire Tunç v. Turkey [GC], no.   24014/05, §§   173-79, 14   April 2015)?