CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juillet 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 4 August 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 23928/21 Murat UÇAR against Türkiye lodged on 28 April 2021 communicated on 15 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in prison. While in prison, the applicant was prescribed a psychiatric medication. On 24   June 2019 he queued in front of the door of his ward to receive his medication from a prison officer. Once he took the pill, the prison officer wanted to see inside his mouth to check whether he had swallowed the medication. The applicant refused, claiming that such a practice did not have a legal basis. On 11 November 2019 the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the İskenderun Public Prosecutor’s Office. He claimed that the prison officer, who had handed over to him his prescribed medication, had attempted to inspect the inside of his mouth, despite not having such authority under the relevant laws. Upon his refusal, the officer had used unnecessary force by pulling on his T-shirt and attempting to twist his right arm. Later the same day, he had been summoned to the office of the chief officer, where he had been threatened by several officers. He also claimed that another officer had attempted to physically assault him once again during that meeting. Moreover, he submitted that he had not been taken for a medical examination promptly, which he had requested to prove the injury caused by the prison officer to his left arm during the incident. On 29 January 2020 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute any officers, stating that the checks on whether the prisoners had swallowed the pills given to them had been necessary to prevent the hoarding and/or the trafficking of pills in the prison. On 9 March 2020 the İskenderun Magistrate’s Court accepted the applicant’s objection to that decision and ordered the prosecutor to examine further evidence, particularly footage from a camera that had not been included in the initial examination. Having obtained an expert report on the additional video footage, the public prosecutor found that it did not reveal any battery or assault and once again issued a decision not to prosecute. On 8 June 2020 the Magistrate’s Court rejected an objection by the applicant to that decision. On 6 November 2020 the Constitutional Court found the applicant’s individual application, in which he had complained of a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment, inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. Relying on Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant claims that having been requested to open his mouth and having been physically assaulted by the prison officer following his refusal to do so constituted ill ‑ treatment. He further argues that the investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment was ineffective. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment by the prison officers, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, by the prison officer’s attempt to inspect the inside of his mouth and the officer’s subsequent use of force against him (see, mutatis mutandis , Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR   2015; Dvořáček v.   the Czech Republic , no. 12927/13, §§ 86-90, 6   November 2014; Jalloh v.   Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 67-74, ECHR   2006-IX; and Naumenko v.   Ukraine , no. 42023/98, §§ 112-116, 10 February 2004)?   In particular, was the alleged physical intervention by the prison officer following the applicant’s refusal to open his mouth made strictly necessary by the applicant’s own conduct (see Bouyid , cited above, § 101)?   The Government are invited to provide any medical reports obtained in respect of the applicant in the aftermath of the alleged incident.   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid , cited above, §§   114-23)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the applicant being compelled to open his mouth after being given his prescribed medication? If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article   8 §   2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis ,   Jalloh , cited above, §§   67-74, and Frérot v. France , no. 70204/01, § 46, 12   June 2007)?