CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 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 15 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 7849/21 Seyit CİNGÖZ against Türkiye lodged on 4 January 2021 communicated on 25 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s alleged ill-treatment in police custody. On 22 November 2016 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an armed terrorist organisation. He remained in police custody until 1   December 2016, when he was placed in pre-trial detention by the Magistrate’s Court. A medical report drawn up on 24 November 2016 during his custody noted a redness on his right cheek. Two other medical reports drawn up on 29   November and 1 December 2016 noted no signs of assault or battery. During his questioning by the public prosecutor on 1 December 2016, the applicant filed a criminal complaint against police officers, claiming that following his arrest on 22 November 2016, he had been brought to a room where he had been hit and ill-treated by the officers who had questioned him. On 31 May 2017 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute. Referring to the statements of the police officers and the doctors who had examined the applicant, the public prosecutor concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute any police officers. On 9 October 2020 the Constitutional Court found the applicant’s individual application, in which he had alleged a violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment, inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant submits that he was subjected to ill-treatment in police custody, and 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, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention, on account of the alleged use of force inflicted on him in police custody on 22 November 2016 (see Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015, and Salin and Karşin v.   Turkey , no.   44188/09, §§ 60-72, 23 June 2015)?   The Government are invited to submit all the medical reports obtained in respect of the applicant during his time in police custody.   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in police custody in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Bouyid , cited above, §§ 114-123, and Salin and Karşin , cited above, §§   75-81)?