The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 October 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Ms Güldane Telli and Mr Nezir Tünç, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1974 and 1963 respectively and live in İzmir and Mardin. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Ş. Yücesoy and Mr M. B. Tek, lawyers practising in Mardin. On 17 November 2009 the applicants’ daughter Gülizar Tünç (“G.T.”) was admitted to the Kızıltepe State Hospital on suspicion of swine flu. On the same day after the administration of a treatment, she was allowed to return home with a drip attached to her arm. Five hours later, as frothy saliva...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 24415/12 Güldane TELLİ and Nezir TÜNÇ against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 1 October 2013 as a Committee composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President, András Sajó, Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Seçkin Erel, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Ms Güldane Telli and Mr Nezir Tünç, are Turkish nationals, who were born in 1974 and 1963 respectively and live in İzmir and Mardin. They were represented before the Court by Mr M. Ş. Yücesoy and Mr M. B. Tek, lawyers practising in Mardin. On 17 November 2009 the applicants’ daughter Gülizar Tünç (“G.T.”) was admitted to the Kızıltepe State Hospital on suspicion of swine flu. On the same day after the administration of a treatment, she was allowed to return home with a drip attached to her arm. Five hours later, as frothy saliva started to come from her mouth G.T. was brought to the hospital once again. They were referred to the Dicle University School of Medicine in Diyarbakır since G.T.’s condition was getting worse. They had to wait at the Kızıltepe State Hospital until 11.00 p.m. for an available room and ambulance. When G.T. reached the Dicle University Hospital, her heart had already stopped. Following a treatment that lasted eight days the applicants’ daughter was diagnosed with meningitis.
2 TELLİ AND TÜNÇ v. TURKEY DECISION On 24 November 2009 she died at 12.00 p.m. An autopsy was carried out on the same day. The applicants lodged a complaint with the public prosecutor of Diyarbakır against the health personnel of the Kızıltepe State Hospital for having caused death by negligence. The latter referred the case to the public prosecutor of Kızıltepe for lack of jurisdiction. The public prosecutor of Kızıltepe carried out the investigation, during which expert evidence was sought from the İstanbul Forensic Medicine Institute. The latter issued its opinion on 30 March 2011. It concluded that the cause of death could not be determined. Although the applicants objected to its findings, based on the expert opinion of the Forensic Medicine Institute, the public prosecutor of Kızıltepe gave a decision of non-prosecution on 7 July 2011. He took note of the police records kept upon the deceased’s second admission to the Kızıltepe State Hospital, according to which the deceased had declared that she had been beaten by her father. However, he observed that there was no evidence suggesting assault and/or battery. As for the health personnel of the Kızıltepe State Hospital, he held that according to the expert report there was no finding suggesting any fault or negligence attributable to them. On 17 October 2011 Midyat Assize Court upheld the decision of non-prosecution. The applicants were notified of the final decision on 7 December 2011. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Articl...