Allegation of Medical Negligence at the Hospital the Court Cannot Rely Solely on the Report
Official titleDecision of the Constitutional Court dated 12/3/2026, Application No. 2021/10952
In a case in which one of a set of twins was stillborn as a result of medical negligence and the other was left disabled, the Constitutional Court has ruled that the applicants’ “right to the protection and development of their physical and spiritual existence” was violated because the administrative courts had not conducted an effective and diligent investigation.
Details of the Regulation
The application is based on an incident in which the second applicant (Şerife Çirci), who was thirty weeks pregnant with twins, presented to Sivas Numune Hospital with complaints of pain and was kept waiting for approximately two hours; the necessary intervention was delayed despite the urgency of the situation; and, at the university hospital to which she was transferred, one of the babies was stillborn while the other was born with serious health problems. The applicants argued that the healthcare personnel had been delayed in the diagnosis and treatment processes and that there was an organizational defect on the part of the administration, and filed a lawsuit seeking full compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.
Sivas Administrative Court, relying on the report of the Forensic Medicine Institution (ATK), rejected the claim for pecuniary damages on the reasoning that the administration had no direct service defect; however, it awarded non-pecuniary damages due to the distress caused by the patient, who belonged to the high-risk pregnancy group, being kept waiting in the emergency department for more than two hours. Upon appeal on facts and law of the decision, the 10th Administrative Chamber of the Ankara Regional Administrative Court, reasoning that the administration had no service defect whatsoever, annulled the non-pecuniary damages award rendered by the local court and dismissed the lawsuit in full.
In its examination, the Constitutional Court found that the courts below and the Forensic Medicine Institution had not conducted an examination that was sufficiently deep and diligent to resolve the manifest contradictions in the medical documents, including the patient’s cervical dilation rate, the NST records, the discrepancies between the transfer and arrival times, and the doctors’ statements. The Court unanimously decided that the state’s positive obligation to protect the person’s physical and spiritual integrity, including the obligation to establish an effective judicial system and conduct a diligent examination, had been violated, and remanded the case to Sivas Administrative Court for retrial in order to eliminate the consequences of the violation.
Questions You Might Have
- Was it definitively established that the doctors or the hospital were the direct offender responsible for the stillbirth of one of the babies?
- No. The Constitutional Court did not issue a direct finding of criminal responsibility; however, it found it unlawful for the local courts and the Forensic Medicine Institution to dismiss the case without adequately investigating the serious contradictions in the case file, such as the delays and errors in transfer, and remanded the case for this investigation to be conducted again.
- Why did the Constitutional Court not decide to award direct compensation to the applicants?
- The Constitutional Court determined that the violation resulted from the inadequate examination in the court decisions. Since the most effective means of remedying the violation was to conduct a retrial and examine the incident thoroughly, the Constitutional Court returned the case to the local court instead of awarding direct compensation.
- Why was the right to a trial within a reasonable time rejected?
- This request was held inadmissible on the reasoning that the applicants had to apply first to the Compensation Commission established by statute under the Ministry of Justice and that they could not apply directly to the Constitutional Court without exhausting this administrative/judicial remedy.
Key Terms
- Maddi ve Manevi Varlığın Korunması Hakkı
- The constitutional right that ensures the protection by the state of a person’s physical and mental integrity and health, as well as the effective investigation of every kind of attack or negligence directed at them.
- Tam Yargı Davası
- A compensation lawsuit filed before the administrative judiciary by those whose rights have been violated due to administrative acts or actions, seeking compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages they have suffered.
- Hizmet Kusuru
- A defect arising from the delayed, defective, or complete non-performance of a service carried out by the public administration that gives rise to the legal liability of the administration.
- Yargılamanın Yenilenmesi
- The process of rehearing a case upon a finding of a serious violation of rights or a procedural error in a final court decision, for the purpose of eliminating the violation.
Where we posted this
Follow Turkish legal developments
REGAS analyzed all 32 items in the Official Gazette of 21 September 2026; we published only 4 of them here.
REGAS summarizes every change in the Turkish Official Gazette in plain language and notifies you.
The REGAS app is currently Turkish-only. If you would like English in the app, the best way to make it happen is to support the developer: get the app and just say so.
REGAS Commentary
This decision raises the standards of examination for courts and expert institutions, such as the Forensic Medicine Institution, in medical negligence and malpractice lawsuits. According to the decision, courts cannot close a case merely by relying on the standard reports submitted to them; they must meticulously examine all contradictory statements in the case file, camera footage, and medical timelines. This decision establishes a strong precedent for all citizens who have suffered the loss of their rights due to delays in hospitals.