CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 janvier 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 } Published on 16 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 40298/21 A.A. against Türkiye lodged on 9 August 2021 communicated on 30 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s allegations that the conditions of his detention did not meet his special needs as a disabled person. On 26 July 2016 Ankara Assize Court ordered the applicant’s pre-trial detention on charges of establishing and leading an illegal organisation. The applicant’s requests for release on health grounds were rejected by the competent courts on multiple occasions. The applicant submitted that he had poliomyelitis sequelae in his left arm and right leg and had a disability rate of 64%. The applicant lodged several individual applications before the Constitutional Court, requesting interim measures for his release on health grounds. In its interim decision of 9 March 2017, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s request for release as an interim measure, but ordered that necessary measures be taken to ensure he was held under conditions compatible with his physical state of health. In the meantime, the applicant also submitted an individual application before the Court and alleged a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, arguing that he was kept in pre-trial detention despite his severe disability. In its examination under Article 3 of the Convention, the Court found that the individual application lodged with the Constitutional Court was still pending and therefore declared the application inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. On 9 June 2020 the Constitutional Court joined the applicant’s applications and declared them inadmissible for being manifestly ill-founded. Considering the information provided by the penitentiary institution regarding the ward in which the applicant was held, it noted that the space per person in his ward exceeded the standard required for protection against ill-treatment, that he had long-term access to outdoor exercise, access to healthcare, services such as a barber and laundry, and the possibility to meet with relatives. Therefore, it found that the applicant’s conditions of detention did not violate the prohibition of ill-treatment. That decision was notified to the applicant on 15 February 2021. Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant submits that his conditions of detention are incompatible with his disability, as he is unable to move his left arm, including the shoulder, and that the authorities failed to ensure that the necessary arrangements are taken to meet his specific needs in prison. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the applicant’s conditions of detention compatible with his state of health, within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the authorities display the requisite special care in ensuring conditions corresponding to the specific needs arising from his disability ( see   Grimailovs v. Latvia , no. 6087/03, § 151, 25 June 2013; Semikhvostov v.   Russia, no. 2689/12, § 85, 6 February 2014; and Helhal v.   France, no.   10401/12, §§ 56-58, 19 February 2015)?   The parties are invited to provide the Court with information and/or documentation regarding the material conditions of the prison ward(s) that the applicant stayed in prison, as well as information regarding whether any specific arrangements were provided to accommodate his specific needs.   2.     Having regard to the reasons given by the Constitutional Court in declaring the applicant’s individual application inadmissible, following the dismissal of the applicant’s requests for release on health grounds, can it be considered that the applicant duly raised before the domestic authorities his complaints concerning the inadequacy of the prison conditions in view of his disability and state of health? In particular, did the applicant request any specific arrangements in his cell from the prison authorities?