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 } Published on 4 August 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 25917/22 Uğur Ahmet YAŞAR against Türkiye lodged on 22 May 2022 communicated on 15 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant by the prison guards in February 2018 in Elazığ High Security Prison. On 16 February 2018 the prison administration decided that the inmate count at the prison would be conducted in a standing position. The applicant and the other individuals in the ward opposed this practice, which led to a physical altercation between the detainees and the prison guards. On 19 February 2018 the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the Elazığ Public Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the prison guards. A medical report drawn up on 21 February 2018 noted mild bruises measuring 3x5 cm and 3x3 cm below the applicant’s left knee, as well as a bruise of 5x5 cm on the right side of his abdomen. On 5 March 2018 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute any prison guards, finding that proportionate force had been used to maintain order during the count in the prison. He further stated that the medical reports, which had been obtained with regard to the detainees who claimed to have been assaulted, indicated no signs of assault or battery. An objection lodged by the applicant against that decision was dismissed by the Elazığ Magistrate’s Court. The applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court on account of his alleged ill-treatment. By a judgment of 16 June 2021, the Constitutional Court stated that the medical reports issued regarding the applicant had made certain findings and that it could not be said that his claims were not arguable. It concluded that there had been a violation of the procedural aspect of the prohibition of ill ‑ treatment, as the investigation had failed to shed light on the cause of the applicant’s injuries and relied solely on the documents provided by the prison administration. The Constitutional Court did not reach a finding regarding the substantive aspect of the applicant’s complaint. Lastly, it ordered that the applicant be paid 5,000   Turkish liras (approximately 480 euros at the material time) in non-pecuniary damages and that a copy of the decision be transmitted to the Elazığ Public Prosecutor’s Office in order for the latter to initiate a fresh investigation. The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 18   December 2021. The applicant complains of a violation of Articles 3, 13 and 14 of the Convention on account of his alleged ill-treatment by the prison guards. He also argues that the Constitutional Court failed to examine his complaint under the substantive limb of Article 3 and awarded a low amount in non-pecuniary damages for the violation of the procedural limb. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In view of the Constitutional Court’s judgment and the amount awarded to the applicant by that court in respect of non-pecuniary damage, can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34 (see İ.G. v.   Türkiye , no.   32887/19, §§ 42-49, 27 August 2024)?   The parties are invited to submit information regarding the current status of the criminal investigation into the applicant’s claims of ill-treatment following the Constitutional Court’s judgment ordering the Public Prosecutor’s Office to initiate a fresh investigation.   2.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment at the hands of State agents in prison, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§   81-90, ECHR 2015)?   3.     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)?