The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 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 6 January 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, M., – to whom the President of the Section decided to grant anonymity (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court) – is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and appearing from the case file, may be summarised as follows. On 27 August 2008 the applicant went to the Cardiovascular Department of the Kayseri Education and Research Hospital in respect of the varicose veins in his legs. He was examined and hospitalised for an operation. The applicant signed an empty form, the heading of which...
SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 4050/10 M. against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 15 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 6 January 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, M., – to whom the President of the Section decided to grant anonymity (Rule 47 § 3 of the Rules of Court) – is a Turkish national, who was born in 1972. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and appearing from the case file, may be summarised as follows. On 27 August 2008 the applicant went to the Cardiovascular Department of the Kayseri Education and Research Hospital in respect of the varicose veins in his legs. He was examined and hospitalised for an operation. The applicant signed an empty form, the heading of which is “Informing the patient and obtaining consent to medical interventions”. Prior to the operation, the doctor asked the applicant if he had another disease. The applicant declared that he was HIV positive, a carrier of the disease. The doctor allegedly stated aloud in reply that since he was HIV positive, he could not examine him. A friend of the applicant, who was there at the material time and had not been aware of the applicant’s condition until then, heard the doctor.
2 M. v. TURKEY DECISION The doctor further wrote on the cover of the applicant’s patient file “HIV positive”. On the same day the applicant was discharged from the hospital. The discharge summary reads as follows: “Diagnosis: Bilateral varicose in lower extremities Treatment: Medical State of Discharge (if assigned, the reason and the institution): As the patient declared that he was HIV (+) (said to be under control and treatment) the operation given up; discharged with recommendations. (signature and seal of the doctor).” On the hospitalisation form, it was noted down: “cancelled”. Subsequently, the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the doctor for breach and abuse of duty as well as the disclosure of personal data. On 18 February 2009 the Governorship of Kayseri decided not to grant permission sought for the prosecution of the doctor, based on the preliminary investigation. It was held that the allegations had not been substantiated. The applicant filed an objection against this administrative decision. On 1 April 2009 the Kayseri Regional Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s objection. On 14 April 2009 the public prosecutor gave a decision of non-prosecution, which was upheld by the Boğazlıyan Assize Court on 12 June 2009. This decision was served on the applicant on 3 July 2009. In his letter dated May 2010 the applicant informed the Court that he had not been operated on yet. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that he has been denied medical care and thus discriminated against on the grou...