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 } Published on 20 April 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 16020/25 Erdal BAKIRCI against Türkiye lodged on 28 April 2025 communicated on 31 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s injury resulting from a tear-gas grenade launched by a police officer during the dispersal of a demonstration in Istanbul and the lack of an effective investigation into the circumstances of the injury. On 27 February 2008 a group of individuals gathered in Maltepe, Istanbul, to protest against a construction project. The applicant, who was 17 years old at the time, was on the balcony of his flat when he was hit in the head by a tear-gas grenade launched by a police officer. According to several medical reports drawn up following the incident, the applicant sustained multiple fractures in the cranial bones, as well as significant oedema and extensive bruising on the head. He remained in the intensive care unit for a week before being discharged from the hospital. On 31 May 2010 the Kartal public prosecutor issued an indictment against five police officers who had been on duty during the dispersal of the demonstration in question, charging them with causing unintentional bodily injury. On 20 May 2014 the Istanbul Criminal Court of First Instance acquitted them, citing the lack of sufficient evidence pointing to their responsibility in the applicant’s injury. On 30 June 2016 the Court of Cassation overturned this acquittal, finding that Law no. 4483 had required an authorisation from the administration before continuing with the prosecution of the police officers for the offence charged. Following the authorisation of the investigation by the administration, the Criminal Court acquitted the defendants once again for lack of evidence on 21   December 2021. Upon appeal, the Court of Cassation decided that the case against the police officers be discontinued, as the statutory time-limit for the offence in question had expired. On 5 December 2023 the applicant submitted an individual application to the Constitutional Court, alleging violations of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention on account of the life-threatening injuries he had sustained by the launch of the tear-gas grenade and the acquittal of the police officers in the ensuing criminal proceedings. On 14 January 2025 the Constitutional Court declared these complaints inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, stating that the applicant had failed to lodge a compensation claim before the administrative courts. Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant submits that he sustained life-threatening injuries because of the police officers’ disproportionate use of force during the demonstration in question. Furthermore, he asserts that the investigation into the incident was ineffective, as the domestic authorities failed to identify the responsible police officers. He contends that the authorities did not act promptly or with due diligence, which resulted in the prosecution of the police officers being discontinued. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the Constitutional Court’s inadmissibility decision, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of his complaints under Articles   2 and   3 of the Convention concerning the injuries he sustained as a result of the launch of a tear-gas grenade ( see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no.   22978/05, §   116, ECHR 2010, and Yeter v. Turkey , no.   33750/03, § 58, 13   January 2009)? 2.     Was the applicant’s right to life, protected under Article 2 of the Convention, or the prohibition of ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention violated in the context of the injuries he sustained following the launch of a tear-gas grenade during the demonstration on 27   February 2008? In particular, were all necessary steps taken by the domestic authorities in organising and regulating the operation with a view to minimising to the greatest extent possible any risk to the right to life (see Makaratzis v.   Greece   [GC], no.   50385/99, § 60, ECHR 2004 ‑ XI)? 3.     Did the authorities do all that could be reasonably expected of them to afford citizens the requisite level of protection where, as in the present case, potentially lethal force was used, and to avoid any real and immediate risk to life and bodily integrity which might arise in the context of police operations dealing with violent demonstrations (see   Ataykaya v. Turkey , no.   50275/08, §   57, 22   July 2014 in relation to Article 2 of the Convention, and Abdullah   Yaşa   and Others v. Turkey , no.   44827/08, § 48, 16   July 2013 in relation to Article 3)? 4.     Having regard to the procedural protection of right to life, and from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case in breach of Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v.   Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 114-123, ECHR 2015, and Abdülsamet Yaman v.   Turkey , no. 32446/96, § 59, 2 November 2004)?