Published on 3 November 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 18768/24
Murat FIRAT
against Türkiye
lodged on 10 June 2024
communicated on 13 October 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the alleged ill-treatment inflicted on the applicant and the discontinuation of a criminal investigation into his allegations pursuant to Article 37 of Legislative Decree no. 668.
On 17 July 2016 the applicant, who was an officer at the Underwater Offence Group Command at the time, was arrested by the authorities on suspicion of having participated in the military coup attempt. A medical report drawn up at 9.39 p.m. on the same date recorded bruising in multiple areas of the forehead, bruising and swelling over the left cheekbone and below the left eye, and deviation of the nasal bone towards the right, accompanied by crepitus. An evaluation by an ear, nose and throat specialist and a plastic surgeon was required to determine the presence of any bone fractures. A second medical report drawn up the following morning repeated those findings. On 19 July 2016 the applicant underwent another medical examination at the Forensic Medicine Institute. In addition to the findings of the previous reports, the report drawn up at the Forensic Medicine Institute further noted that the applicant complained of hearing loss in both ears and had a 3.5 cm laceration scar on the inside of the left hand.
In July 2019 the applicant submitted a criminal complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, claiming that he had been subjected to ill-treatment by the officers after he had turned himself in on 17 July 2016. He explained how he had been assaulted and submitted the medical reports noting his injuries to the public prosecutor. On 1 August 2019 the public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute any officers, stating that their actions fell within the scope of Article 37 of Legislative Decree no. 668 and therefore no criminal investigation could be conducted in respect of these officers. An objection lodged by the applicant against that decision was rejected by the Istanbul Anadolu Magistrate’s Court.
Article 37 of Legislative Decree no. 668 of 27 July 2016 provides that persons who took and implemented decisions or performed duties within the scope of judicial and administrative measures in relation to the suppression of the attempted military coup and terrorist acts carried out on 15 July 2016 and the subsequent related actions, as well as those who took decisions and fulfilled duties pursuant to the legislative decrees issued during the state of emergency, shall not bear any legal, administrative, financial or criminal liability in respect of such decisions, duties and acts.
On 23 September 2019 the applicant submitted an individual application to the Constitutional Court, claiming that the prohibition of ill-treatment had been violated. According to the information in the case file, that individual application is still pending before that court.
Relying on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant submits that he was subjected to torture and inhuman treatment by State officials and that the public prosecutor’s decision not to prosecute any officers pursuant to Article 37 of Legislative Decree no. 668 rendered the criminal investigation into his allegations ineffective. He further claims that the Constitutional Court can no longer be considered as an effective remedy in his case, as it has not ruled on his application for over five years, although his case was not complex in view of the findings of the medical reports. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, he also complains of the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, considering the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, can an application to that court be considered as an effective remedy to be exhausted in the circumstances of the present case (see Bancsók and László Magyar v. Hungary (no. 2), nos. 52374/15 and 53364/15, §§ 24-27, 28 October 2021; and, mutatis mutandis, Kavala v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, § 195, 10 December 2019; and G.B. and Others v. Turkey, no. 4633/15, §§ 185-88, 17 October 2019)?
2. Has the applicant been subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no. 23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015)?
3. Having regard to the procedural protection from torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, was the investigation in the present case, which was discontinued with reference to Article 37 of Legislative Decree no. 668, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09 and 2 others, § 326, ECHR 2014; Okkalı v. Turkey, no. 52067/99, § 65, ECHR 2006‑XII; and Abdülsamet Yaman v. Turkey, no. 32446/96, § 55, 2 November 2004)?
4. Was the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII; and Ümmühan Kaplan v. Turkey, no. 24240/07, §§ 45-48, 20 March 2012)?