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. 34364/24 Murat ŞEN against Türkiye lodged on 1 November 2024 communicated on 15 July 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged delay in the medical treatment provided to the applicant in prison. At the time of the events, the applicant was detained in Kayseri T-Type Prison. On 18 August 2023 he fell on his hand during a sports activity. On the same day, a doctor at a district polyclinic diagnosed a fracture in his right wrist and applied a temporary splint. The doctor also requested the applicant’s transfer to an orthopaedist, noting that she could not assess the full extent and impact of the injury. On 23 August 2023 the prison administration decided to transfer the applicant to Kayseri City Hospital and scheduled an appointment for 25 August 2023. However, this decision was annulled the following day due to security concerns caused by lack of staff. On 25 August 2023 the Kayseri Public Prosecutor’s Office corresponded ex officio with the prison administration, the Bünyan Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Kayseri Provincial Gendarmerie Command, requesting an investigation into the prison authorities’ failure to transfer the applicant despite the medical recommendation. On the same day, the prison administration transferred the applicant to the hospital, where an orthopaedist examined him for the first time and diagnosed a deformation and crepitation on his right wrist. On 29 August 2023 the applicant underwent surgery. Meanwhile, the Bünyan Public Prosecutor’s Office and Kayseri Provincial Gendarmerie Command conducted investigations into the matter. According to the Gendarmerie Command’s preliminary investigation report of 13   September 2023, there was no basis for initiating a disciplinary investigation against the gendarmerie personnel as the initial medical report did not indicate that the applicant needed to be transferred urgently and as he had eventually been transferred to the hospital on the scheduled date. On   3   October 2023 the Bünyan Public Prosecutor’s Office decided not to prosecute any gendarmerie staff, relying on the Gendarmerie Command’s preliminary investigation report. An objection lodged by the applicant against that decision was rejected by the Kayseri Magistrate’s Court. The applicant subsequently lodged an individual application with the Constitutional Court. On 4 October 2024 the Constitutional Court declared his application inadmissible, finding that he had failed to exhaust the remedy before the enforcement judge. Invoking Articles 2, 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that, despite having a severe fracture that required urgent surgery, he was not promptly referred to a specialist doctor for treatment, and that the fracture was only operated on the eleventh day after the accident. He claims that that delay caused his wrist to heal up incorrectly, requiring it to be re ‑ broken prior to surgery. The applicant also argues that the investigation conducted by the Bünyan Public Prosecutor’s Office was ineffective, as it relied heavily on the preliminary investigation report submitted by the Gendarmerie Command, without including him or any of the staff and doctors concerned in the investigation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant duly exhaust the remedies available in domestic law in respect of his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   35   §   1 of the Convention?   2.     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 the applicant’s health and well-being were adequately secured by providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR   2000-XI; Kolesnikovich v. Russia , no.   44694/13, §§ 69-70 and 78, 22   March 2016; and Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, §§ 136-37, 23   March 2016)? Was the treatment provided to the applicant prompt and accurate (see Melnik v.   Ukraine , no. 72286/01, § 106, 28 March 2006)?   (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 requested to submit all medical reports issued in relation to the applicant’s injury, as well as all documents pertaining to the disciplinary and criminal investigations concerning the applicant’s complaints.