CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 octobre 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 3 November 2025   SECOND SECTION Applications nos. 51957/20 and 8098/21 Selahattin GÜMÜŞ against Türkiye lodged on 10 November 2020 and 6 January 2021 respectively communicated on 13 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicant’s alleged lack of access to adequate and prompt medical and notably dental care in prison. At the time of the events, the applicant was detained in Yozgat E-Type Prison. According to his submissions, he suffers from fibromyalgia, haemorrhoids, and several diseases relating to his stomach and prostate. Additionally, while in prison, the applicant developed a gum disease, which required the extraction of all his teeth and the use of dentures. On several occasions, the applicant submitted petitions to the prison administration, the public prosecutor and the enforcement judge, stating that he had been experiencing prolonged delays in securing appointments with the prison doctor and dentist, as well as in being transferred to a hospital, and further complained of insufficient provision of medication. Application no. 51957/20 concerns his complaint to the public prosecutor about the allegedly arbitrary delay in the dental treatment required. He argued that after all his teeth had been extracted, he remained without teeth for approximately eight months until dentures were fitted. Application no. 8098/21 concerns the applicant’s complaints regarding his alleged lack of access to adequate medical care in relation to the multiple diseases he had been suffering from, as well as the delays in accessing the necessary dental care. On several dates in July 2018, the applicant submitted petitions to the enforcement judge, complaining about the delays in securing appointments with the prison infirmary, as well as transfers to hospital for more detailed medical examinations. Furthermore, he claimed that he had not been provided with sufficient medication for his diagnosed illnesses. The enforcement judge referred the applicant’s petition to the public prosecutor, stating that he did not have jurisdiction to rule on matters relating to the criminal responsibility of prison officials. As a result of both his complaints, by two decisions of 8 October 2018 and 11   October 2018 respectively, the public prosecutor concluded that all necessary medical and dental procedures were being complied with by the authorities. The applicant lodged two separate individual applications before the Constitutional Court, complaining of a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment. The Constitutional Court rejected both applications for being manifestly ill-founded. Relying on Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant argues that he was denied adequate medical and notably dental 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?   In particular, did the State authorities ensure that his health and well-being in detention 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)?   2.     Was the treatment provided to the applicant notably for his dental condition prompt and accurate (see V.D. v. Romania , no.   7078/02, §§   92-99, 16   February 2010, and Drăgan v. Romania , no.   65158/09, §§   82-94, 2   February 2016)?   The Government are invited to provide the Court with all medical reports drawn up with regard to the applicant’s aforementioned illnesses during his detention, and all other relevant documents concerning the treatments provided to him.