The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 October 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Danutė Jočienė, Peer Lorenzen, Dragoljub Popović, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 January 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mehmet Veysi Özel, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1971. He is currently serving a sentence in the İzmir T-Type Prison. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1. Preliminary information On 5 September 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Hizbullah. On 15 October 2001 the applicant was placed in...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 4243/09 Mehmet Veysi ÖZEL against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22 October 2013 as a Chamber composed of: Guido Raimondi, President, Danutė Jočienė, Peer Lorenzen, Dragoljub Popović, Işıl Karakaş, Nebojša Vučinić, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 January 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mehmet Veysi Özel, is a Turkish national, who was born in 1971. He is currently serving a sentence in the İzmir T-Type Prison. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1. Preliminary information On 5 September 2001 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation, namely the Hizbullah. On 15 October 2001 the applicant was placed in detention pending trial.
2 ÖZEL v. TURKEY DECISION On 30 December 2009 he was convicted of attempting to undermine the constitutional order under Article 146 § 1 of the former Criminal Code. On 26 January 2011 the Court of Cassation upheld his conviction. At the time of the events giving rise to this application, the applicant was being held in detention at the Diyarbakır High Security Prison, first pending his trial, subsequently as a convict. 2. The applicant’s medical condition and treatment The applicant suffers from diabetes mellitus type-2 (formerly called non-insulin dependent diabetes). On an unspecified date in early 2008, the prison doctor at the Diyarbakır High-Security Prison referred the applicant to a hospital for what appeared to be routine medical controls in relation to his diabetes. The prison authorities’ initial attempt to escort him to the hospital as instructed was turned down by the applicant on the ground that the relevant tests needed to be done on an empty stomach. He therefore asked the authorities to delay his transfer to the hospital until the next morning. On 25 March 2008, when the applicant had still not been taken to the hospital despite what he alleged to be a two-month lapse since the referral by the prison doctor, he submitted a complaint to the Diyarbakır Enforcement Judge (infaz hakimliği) against the prison authorities, whom he accused of neglecting his health and treatment. On 26 March 2008 he was taken to the Diyarbakır State Hospital for his medical consultation. The applicant has not submitted a copy of the examination report. After reviewing the applicant’s medical file, on 11 April 2008 the Enforcement Judge confirmed that the applicant had been undergoing regular treatment for his type-2 diabetes; that he had been prescribed anti-diabetic medication and been provided with a glucose measurement kit to monitor regularly his glucose levels while in the prison; and that he had been referred to the hospital at the discret...