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. 34677/21 Mehmet ÇİFTÇİ against Türkiye lodged on 30 June 2021 communicated on 15 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns allegations of ill-treatment raised by the applicant who was detained in Edirne F-Type High Security Prison. On 17 September 2019 the applicant was transferred to Trakya University Medicine Faculty for an examination regarding a urological illness. According to the applicant, while being taken to the relevant unit in the hospital by two gendarmerie officers holding his arms, in addition to the handcuffs placed on both his wrists, the officers attempted to attach a second pair of handcuffs to the chains of the first handcuff and then fix it to another gendarmerie officer. As the applicant did not accept this practice, he was brought back to the prison without going through the medical examination. He submits that he was not taken back to the hospital for the examination prescribed after that date. The applicant lodged a complaint before the Edirne public prosecutor, asserting that his transfer to the relevant hospital unit under such circumstances constituted inhuman treatment. He also requested to have his treatment provided. The public prosecutor referred the file to the Edirne District Governor’s Office and requested authorisation to prosecute the accused gendarmerie officers in accordance with Law no. 4483 on the Prosecution of Civil Servants and Other Public Officials. The District Governor’s Office declined to grant the required authorisation to prosecute the officers owing to a lack of sufficient evidence demonstrating that a crime had been committed by them. Upon an objection lodged by the applicant, the Istanbul Regional Administrative Court upheld that decision. Subsequently, the public prosecutor discontinued the investigation. The Constitutional Court found the applicant’s individual application, in which he complained of a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment, inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. The applicant alleges that the practice of double handcuffing while being transferred to a medical examination constituted treatment contrary to Article   3 of the Convention. He further complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the lack of effectiveness of the investigation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the attempted double handcuffing during his transfer for a medical examination (see, for the general principles, Mouisel v. France , no. 67263/01, §§   46-47, ECHR   2002-IX ; Avcı and Others v.   Turkey , no. 70417/01, §§   35-45, 27   June 2006, and Filiz Uyan v.   Turkey , no. 7496/03, §§ 30-33, 8   January 2009)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection against inhuman or degrading treatment, did the investigation carried out by the domestic authorities into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in the present case satisfy the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see Kurnaz and   Others v. Turkey , no.   36672/97, §§ 60-62, 24 July 2007, and Döndü   Erdoğan v. Turkey , no. 32505/02, §§ 52-55, 23 March 2010)?