Α court that examines a case of compensation for a medical error of military doctors is not impartial when two military officers are part of the bench
JUDGMENT
Mehmet Hidayet Altun and others v. Turkey 14.11.2017 (no. 48756/11)
SUMMARY
Unbiased Court. Death of soldier from epilepsy during his military service. It is not impartial for the Supreme Military Administrative Court to examine a lawsuit against the army for the death of a soldier when two army officers are involved in the Court. The ECtHR found that Article 6 (1) had been violated. No iolation of Article 2 on the right to life.
PROVISIONS
Article 2
Article 6 § 1
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicants, Mehmet Hidayet Altunn, Murat Altun, Özgür Altun, Zübeyde Altun and Fatma Altun,
are Turkish nationals who were born in 1949, 1989, 1977, 1951 and 1999 respectively and live in
Istanbul. The case concerned the death of their relative, Resul Altun, during his compulsory military
service. The applicants are the deceased’s father, brothers, mother and sister, respectively.
On 13 April 2008 Resul Altun, who belonged to the 5th infantry squadron, was twice examined by
the military doctor following anxiety attacks and fainting fits. The doctor requested his transfer to
the psychiatric service of Girne hospital for the following day on the grounds of his anxiety disorders.
The next day Resul Altun lost consciousness following a fresh attack. Diagnosing epilepsy, the doctor
transferred him urgently to Girne hospital, where his state deteriorated, despite intensive care. On
15 April 2008 he was transferred to the GATA military hospital in Ankara, where he died on 30 April
2008 of complications related to epilepsy.
On the same date the military prosecutor instigated an investigation. An expert assessment was
carried out establishing that Resul Altun had no known history of epilepsy and that he had died of
the after-effects of a single, severe epileptic fit. The report found that no negligence could be
imputed to the doctors involved or to the military authorities. On 27 November 2008 the
prosecution gave a discontinuance decision, but Resul Altun’s father objected, alleging that his son
had not benefited from a proper medical examination before joining the army and that the military
doctor’s diagnosis had breached the medical rules. On 6 February 2009 the Military Court dismissed
the father’s appeal. The deceased’s family lodged a claim for compensation with the High Military
Administrative Court for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained, but that claim was
dismissed. Their request for a rectification of the judgment was also rejected.
Relying on Article 2 (right to life vie) and Article 6 (right to a fair trial), the Altun family complained of
an infringement of their relative’s right to life owing to the fact that his illness had not been
diagnosed when he was drafted into the army and that there had been delays in his hospitalisation.
They also complained that the High Court which had assessed their appeal had not been
independent and impartial owing to the presence of two military officers on the bench.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
No violation of Article 2
Violation of Article 6 § 1
Just satisfaction: EUR 1,500 to the applicants jointly for non-pecuniary damage(echrcaselaw.com editing).
