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 Application no. 16229/21 Şinasi DEMİR against Türkiye lodged on 3 March 2021 communicated on 13 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged lack of access to adequate medical care in prison. At the time of the events, the applicant was detained in Zonguldak M-Type Prison. According to his submissions, he started experiencing severe stomach pain, vomiting, and diarrhoea on 9 January 2017. He received intravenous treatment several times at the prison infirmary, but without improvement. On 17   January 2017 he was transferred to a hospital for treatment. However, no conclusive diagnosis was made during his hospital visit, and he was returned to the prison. As his condition worsened, he was again transferred to a hospital on 7 February 2017, where he remained hospitalised until 14   February 2017. A medical report issued on the day of his discharge recommended his transfer to a hospital with a gastroenterology clinic, since a conclusive diagnosis could not be made. However, such a transfer could not be arranged to the lack of a secure ward for detainees and the unavailability of beds in other hospitals. It was further noted that although the applicant was informed that stopping the treatment could cause his condition to deteriorate, potentially leading even to death, he refused treatment, signed a waiver, and was discharged with a recommendation to attend a gastroenterology clinic. On 16 February 2017 the applicant was transferred to Düzce T-Type Prison and was able to see a gastroenterology specialist on 24 March 2017. He was then diagnosed and started to receive treatment. On 12 December 2017 the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that he had not received adequate medical care as his transfers to hospital and doctor appointments had been cancelled arbitrarily. He argued that he had not refused treatment and that he had been discharged from the hospital without his consent even though the doctor had stated that his situation could be life-threatening. On 26 February 2020 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute any prison officials. Having examined the applicant’s medical records, he found that the applicant had been transferred to the hospital on multiple occasions and that the prison officials had not been negligent when carrying out their duties. The applicant’s objection to that decision was rejected by the Zonguldak Magistrate’s Court. On 25 December 2020 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint regarding a breach of the prohibition of ill-treatment for being manifestly ill-founded. Relying on Articles 2, 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that he was denied adequate and timely medical care in prison and that the public prosecutor failed to investigate his allegations effectively as he did not examine all relevant medical records, hear witnesses or address his complaints. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   (a)     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)? Was the treatment provided to the applicant for his medical 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, §§   115-16, 29 November 2007)?   (b)     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see, mutatis mutandis , Machina v. the Republic of Moldova , no.   69086/14, §§ 40-45, 17 January 2023), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to provide the Court with all medical reports drawn up with regard to the applicant after 9 January 2017, and all other relevant documents concerning the treatment provided to him.