CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mars 2026

.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 } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 20 April 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 18919/23 Kemal KARANFİL against Türkiye lodged on 19 April 2023 communicated on 31 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in prison following a visit by his lawyer. The applicant, a former judge, was placed in pre-trial detention on 16   July 2016 on suspicion of membership in an armed terrorist organisation (“Fetullahist Terror Organisation/Parallel State Structure”). On 18   August 2016 he had a meeting with his lawyer, which was monitored by prison officers. The applicant verbally objected to this practice, following which the officers informed the applicant that the meeting was recorded in accordance with Emergency Legislative Decree no. 667. Subsequently, a physical altercation occurred between the applicant and the prison officers. On 19   August 2016 the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that he had been subjected to ill ‑ treatment by the prison officers. He argued that after the lawyer’s visit, a prison officer conducting body search had ordered him to remove his shoes. Afterwards, the officer had pushed him aside, two other officers had twisted his arm, and several officers had physically assaulted him. He had struggled to breathe and called for help, but they had continued by twisting his arms and neck before placing him in an empty cell. A medical report drawn up on 18 August 2016 recorded the applicant’s complaint about a physical altercation with an officer after the lawyer’s visit. The doctor noted a scratch measuring 3x0.2 cm on the inner front part of his right elbow, pain in both his arms and neck without any external signs, and a 2x2   cm redness on his right shoulder. On 29   August 2016 the prison administration imposed an eleven-day solitary confinement disciplinary penalty on the applicant for the incident in question. The administration stated that the applicant had hit a prison officer in the chest and then injured him by kicking and scratching. Upon the applicant’s objection, the enforcement judge annulled the disciplinary penalty on 13   December 2016, concluding that the CCTV footage showed a conversation between the applicant and the officer in front of the lawyer meeting area, after which the officers had suddenly intervened, taken the applicant to the ground, and restrained him. The footage did not confirm that the applicant had hit or kicked the officers. On 31   October 2018 the public prosecutor submitted an indictment to Kandıra Criminal Court, requesting the punishment of three prison officers for assaulting the applicant. After examining the statements of the applicant and the suspect officers, along with the medical reports and CCTV footage, the public prosecutor concluded that the applicant had not resisted the officers during the incident and that the applicant’s injuries had been caused by the officers’ excessive use of force. The documents in the case file demonstrate that the indictment against the prison officers was later withdrawn. On 6 February 2019 the Kandıra chief public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute any prison officers in respect of the incident. He found that the officers in question had acted within their lawful authority when they had used forced against the applicant, and that, given the minor injuries noted on the medical report, their use of force had not been disproportionate. The applicant’s objection to that decision was rejected by the Magistrate’s Court. On 24   April 2019 the applicant lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court, complaining about his alleged ill-treatment by the prison officers and the lack of effectiveness of the ensuing investigation. On 20   December 2022 the Constitutional Court found no violation of the prohibition of ill-treatment under its substantive and procedural limbs. It stated that there had been no shortcomings in the investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, and that the prison officers’ use of force had been necessary and proportionate. Relying on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant submits that he was subjected to ill-treatment by the prison officers on 18   August 2016, 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 by the prison officers, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v.   Belgium   [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR   2015)?   2.     Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation by the domestic authorities into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment in the present case in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see   Bouyid , cited above, §§   114 ‑ 23)?