CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mars 2025

.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 } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } Published on 22 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 24765/20 Mustafa CANDEMİR against Türkiye lodged on 22 May 2020 communicated on 31 March 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment by police officers from the Rapid Response Force ( çevik kuvvet ) in İzmir. According to the applicant, on 12 March 2014, while he was sitting in a café, he was caught up in a police intervention in a demonstration and when he complained to the officers about his exposure to tear gas, the latter heavily beat him with truncheons and helmets. The medical reports drawn up on the same day at the Tepecik Training and Research Hospital noted that the applicant had nasal deformity, dried blood, dermabrasion and oedema in the nostrils, and dermabrasion on the left side of his torso. On 2 July 2014, as a result of disciplinary proceedings carried out by the İzmir Governor upon the applicant’s complaint, one of the officers was imposed a disciplinary sanction of three days’ salary cut. In the meantime, the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the İzmir Public Prosecutor’s Office, arguing that the treatment inflicted on him constituted torture and could not be considered to be within the limits of necessary use of force. On 10 January 2017 the Public Prosecutor decided not to prosecute any officers. Finding that the applicant had insulted the officers and had punched one of them, as a result of which an officer had thrown his helmet in his direction, the Public Prosecutor concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to initiate criminal proceedings against the officers. On 2   June 2017 the İzmir Magistrates’ Court rejected the applicant’s objection to that decision. According to the applicant, the Magistrates’ Court’s decision was not served on him and he learned of it on 8 February 2019. Meanwhile, the full remedy action the applicant lodged with the İzmir Administrative Court on 21 September 2015 was dismissed for being out of the one-year statutory time-limit. The applicant’s appeal, wherein he argued that he had lodged the action following the notification of the Governor’s disciplinary decision to him and that the Administrative Court’s interpretation contradicted the Supreme Administrative Court’s case-law, were also rejected. The final decision regarding that set of proceedings was notified to the applicant on 28 January 2019. On 18 February 2019 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, complaining of a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment and his right of access to court. On 7 May 2020 the Constitutional Court examined the application from the standpoint of the prohibition of ill-treatment alone and rejected it for being out of the thirty-day time-limit. In doing so, it referred to its case-law in which it had previously concluded that in criminal proceedings where the notification of a decision had not been regulated by law, the applicants would be expected to show the required diligence. In such cases the thirty-day time-limit would start running at the end of the three-month period following a final decision, as the applicants would be considered to have learned of the final decision then at the latest. The applicant complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that his right of access to court was violated on account of the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the thirty-day time-limit. In that respect, he argues that the Constitutional Court’s interpretation was unforeseeable and formalistic as he was not notified of the Magistrates’ Court’s decision despite the fact that the notification of such decisions was foreseen by Article 173 §   3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He further maintains that the Constitutional Court failed to examine his complaint regarding his right of access to court before the administrative courts, despite the fact that his individual application had been lodged within thirty days after the notification of the final decision in that set of proceedings. Lastly, he contends that the İzmir Administrative Court’s interpretation of the one-year time-limit was also in breach of his right of access to court as it contradicted the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court on the matter. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains of his alleged ill-treatment by the police and maintains that the investigation into his claim was ineffective.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention on account of the Constitutional Court’s interpretation of the thirty-day time-limit in its decision dated 7   May 2020 (No:   2019/5869), with regard to both the applicant’s complaint about his alleged ill-treatment and his complaint concerning his right of access to court before the administrative courts (see   Üçdağ v. Turkey , no. 23314/19, §§   37 ‑ 50, 31   August 2021)?   Moreover, was the administrative courts’ interpretation of the one-year time-limit in breach of the applicant’s right of access to court under Article   6   §   1 of the Convention (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no.   40160/12, §§   97-98, 5   April 2018)?   2.     Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies with regard to his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention?   If so, has he been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015, and İşik v. Türkiye , no.   42202/20, §   60, 8 October 2024)?   Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid , cited above, §§   114-23, and Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine , nos. 15367/14 and 13   others, §§ 327-66, 21 January 2021)?