CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 avril 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 22 April 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 34506/21 Bilal KARAKURT against Türkiye lodged on 2 June 2021 communicated on 3 April 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged delay in the medical treatment provided to the applicant in prison. At the time of the events, the applicant was detained in Bandırma T-Type Prison. According to his submissions, on 12 August 2018 he started to experience vision loss after a ball had hit his right eye. On 16 August 2018 he was transferred to Bandırma State Hospital, where the doctor who examined him noted that he had degeneration of macula and advised his transfer to Uludağ University Hospital which was better equipped. Subsequently, he was transferred to three other hospitals, where it was established that he suffered from retinal detachment and needed to be operated urgently. However, the operation was not carried out for reasons such as the specialised doctor being on leave or lack of place in the prisoners’ hospital ward. On 21 November 2018 he was operated in a hospital in Istanbul. According to the applicant, he was diagnosed with 90% vision impairment. In the meantime, the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the Bandırma public prosecutor’s office, arguing that his treatment had been substantially delayed and that he had been denied treatment at different hospitals for various reasons. By a decision of 29 January 2019, the public prosecutor issued a decision of non-prosecution, finding that the applicant had been provided with all required treatment in a timely manner. On 7   February 2020 the Magistrates’ Court rejected his objection, finding that he had been transferred to a number of hospitals for his treatment and, while one of his transfers had resulted from the absence of a specialised doctor, no official could be held responsible for that. Subsequently, the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court. On 1 March 2021 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint regarding prohibition of ill-treatment for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In doing so, it relied on its case-law wherein it had found that in Turkish law compensatory proceedings constituted a more effective remedy with regard to medical negligence complaints. The applicant complains, under Articles 2, 3 and 13 of the Convention, that he had been denied timely medical care in prison.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   2.     In particular, did the State authorities ensure that his health and well-being were adequately secured by providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI, and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 136-37, 23 March 2016)?   3.     Was the treatment provided to the applicant for his eye condition prompt and accurate (see Melnik v. Ukraine , no. 72286/01, § 106, 28 March 2006, and Hummatov v. Azerbaijan , nos. 9852/03 and 13413/04, §   116, 29   November 2007)?   The Government are invited to provide the Court with all medical reports drawn up with regard to the applicant after the beginning of his eye condition on 12 August 2018, and all other relevant documents concerning the treatment provided to him, including all documents pertaining to the annulment of the operations scheduled between September and November 2018.