The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Danutė Jočienė, András Sajó, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 July 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Şerif Gecekuşu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Gaziantep. He is represented before the Court by Ms G. Satıcı, a lawyer practising in Gaziantep. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent. 2 GECEKUŞU v. TURKEY DECISION A. The circumstances of the case It is common ground between the parties that the applicant had a heart attack on 13 May 2003 and subsequently, on 20 May 2003, he underwent bypass surgery at Gaziantep...
SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 28870/05 by Şerif GECEKUŞU against Turkey The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of: Françoise Tulkens, President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto, Danutė Jočienė, András Sajó, Nona Tsotsoria, Işıl Karakaş, Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 July 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Şerif Gecekuşu, is a Turkish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Gaziantep. He is represented before the Court by Ms G. Satıcı, a lawyer practising in Gaziantep. The respondent Government are represented by their Agent.
2 GECEKUŞU v. TURKEY DECISION A. The circumstances of the case It is common ground between the parties that the applicant had a heart attack on 13 May 2003 and subsequently, on 20 May 2003, he underwent bypass surgery at Gaziantep University Hospital. Following the surgery, the applicant developed a complication (optic neuropathy) and gradually lost his eyesight. The two parties have divergent versions as to the treatment administered to the applicant after the surgery. 1. Events prior to the applicant losing his eyesight (a) The applicant's submissions On 22 May 2003, two days after his bypass surgery, the applicant informed his heart surgeons, Dr E.B. and Dr H.Ü, that his vision had deteriorated. As the doctors took no action, the applicant, on his own initiative, contacted an ophthalmologist from another hospital, Dr K.G., who prescribed a certain type of medication. The heart surgeons refused to use the medication prescribed by the ophthalmologist, as they considered that it would be fatal to the applicant's condition because it had to be administered as a serum. Instead, the heart surgeons used steroids to treat the applicant and he gradually lost his eyesight. (b) The Government's submissions On 22 May 2003, when the applicant informed his heart surgeon about the deterioration of his vision, Dr H.Ü transferred the applicant to the ophthalmology clinic of Gaziantep University Hospital for consultation. Dr H.Ü further requested a consultation at the neurology department. On the same day Dr K.G., an ophthalmologist at the ophthalmology clinic of Gaziantep University Hospital, examined the applicant and ran a number of tests, as a result of which the applicant was diagnosed as having optic neuropathy. The medication, namely methyl prednizolon-prednol, prescribed by Dr KG., was immediately administered to the applicant, from 22 May 2003 to 29 May 2003. Nevertheless, the applicant gradually lost his eyesight. 2. The domestic proceedings initiated by the applicant after he lost his eyesight On 14 November 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Gaziantep public prosecutor against the cardiology department of Gaziantep University Hospital, alleging that ...