5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Istanbul. 6.  On 24 May 2001 the applicant started his compulsory military service in Şırnak. On 25 July 2001 he contacted the infirmary of his regiment, complaining of severe pain in his left eye. According to the applicant, the military doctor was absent and he was given eye drops by a soldier who had no medical qualifications. According to the Government, the records of the infirmary (which were not made available to the Court) showed that the applicant had been examined by a military doctor and given eye drops by that doctor and not by a soldier. 7.  The following day the pain became persistent, so the applicant contacted the infirmary once again. He was told that he should go to his dormitory and rest. According to the applicant, despite the pain he was in, he was not relieved of his sentry duties during that period. On 2 August 2001 he was referred to the Cizre State Hospital, where he was diagnosed with a corneal ulcer. 8.  On 6 August 2001 the applicant was transferred to the Diyarbakır Military Hospital, where his treatment started. However, he completely lost the sight in his left eye. According to the applicant, the doctors informed him that he had lost his eyesight because of the delay in starting the treatment, as in corneal ulcer cases it was essential to start treatment immediately. 9.  On 13 August 2001 the applicant was transferred to Ankara GATA Military Hospital for further treatment. He stayed there until 25 September 2001, during which time he underwent several operations. He returned to the hospital for a number of additional operations from 9 November 2001 to 7 February 2002, 10 to 21 March 2002, 2 to 10 May 2002, and lastly, 15 to 18 July 2002. 10.  A medical report issued on 17 July 2002 concluded that the applicant was no longer medically fit for military service and that he was eligible for an ocular prosthesis. On the basis of that report, the applicant was formally discharged from the army. 11.  On 15 October 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings before the Supreme Military Administrative Court, seeking compensation from the Ministry of the Interior for the damage he had suffered to his eye during his compulsory military service as a result of the delay in his treatment. He claimed 30,000,000,000 Turkish liras (TRL[1]; approximately 19,000 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and TRL 30,000,000,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. He argued that for a period of one week after the start of his eye problem, he had been unable to see a doctor because there had been no doctor present at his regiment infirmary during that time. He gave the administrative court the names of a number of his fellow conscripts who had witnessed the fact that he had not been provided with medical treatment by a doctor in the first week but had instead been told to rest and use eye drops, and asked the court to question them. 12.  In the written defence submissions that it sent to the administrative court, the Gendarmerie High Command argued that on 25 and 26 July 2001 the applicant had been examined at the infirmary of his regiment by military doctor İ.H.Ş., who had prescribed medication for him. 13.  In his observations submitted to the administrative court on 6 January 2003 in response to those of the Gendarmerie High Command, the applicant maintained his allegation that on his first visit to the infirmary he had been examined by a soldier because the military doctor, İ.H.Ş., had been temporarily dispatched to another regiment. He repeated his request that witnesses be summoned to testify before the administrative court and asked the administrative court also to summon and question Dr İ.H.Ş. 14.  During the proceedings the administrative court appointed three university professors from the ophthalmology department of Gazi University’s Faculty of Medicine as experts with a view to clarifying whether there had been any medical malpractice in the applicant’s case. Their expert report drawn up on 6 April 2005 concluded:
“Our medical opinion, based on our examination of the plaintiff’s allegations, is as follows: 1.  It is understood that, although the problem in the patient’s eye is described in the medical reports as a ‘corneal ulcer’, the cause of the corneal ulcer (Herpes virus? Fungal infection? Bacterial infection?) is not known. Furthermore, it is considered that it was not possible to establish with certainty the infection factor at the hospitals where the patient was observed and treated. For this reason, it is not possible to decide whether the eye problem was related to his military service or whether it was idiosyncratic. 2.  Similarly, because the problem could not be fully diagnosed, it was not possible to determine the outcome [of the applicant’s symptoms] within one to two weeks. 3.  [We are of the opinion that] there were no delays, shortcomings, mistakes or negligence in the steps taken in transferring the patient to the hospital, diagnosing the problem, treating the problem or treating the patient.” 15.  The applicant submitted a written statement to the administrative court on 29 April 2005, arguing that the medical report contained contradictory conclusions. He pointed out that, although the experts had indicated in the report that the problem had not been fully diagnosed, they had then gone on to conclude that there had been no shortcomings in the diagnosis of the problem. He further argued that the conclusion reached by the experts, namely that “because the problem could not be fully diagnosed, it was not possible to determine the outcome [of the applicant’s symptoms] within one to two weeks”, fully supported his allegations. His contention was also that, precisely because the problem had not been diagnosed properly, the treatment had not started in a timely manner. The applicant asked the administrative court to take steps to eliminate the inconsistencies by requesting and obtaining additional reports from a different set of experts. 16.  In his written opinion submitted to the Supreme Military Administrative Court, the public prosecutor stated that the applicant should be awarded compensation either for the authorities’ negligence if such negligence was established, or on the basis of the no-fault strict liability of the military administration. 17.  On 18 May 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court, on the basis of the expert report of 6 April 2005 (see paragraph 14 above), dismissed the applicant’s claim by a majority of four to one and held that no fault could be attributed to the military authorities in the treatment of the applicant. 18.  In its decision the Supreme Military Administrative Court did not deal with the applicant’s allegation that between 25 July and 2 August 2001 he had been unable to see a doctor in the regiment infirmary because there had not been a doctor there during that time, other than stating that the applicant had “contacted the infirmary of the regiment on 25 and 26 July 2001 and started receiving medical treatment there”. Nor did the administrative court respond to the applicant’s requests to have his witnesses heard. 19.  A dissenting judge stated in his separate opinion that issues such as the cause of the problem, whether or not it had been as a result of the applicant’s military activities, and what bearing the one-to-two week delay had had on the outcome had not been established in the expert report of 6 April 2005. The dissenting judge thus considered that the administrative court should not have decided the case without having obtained a new report and clarified those points. 20.  The applicant requested a rectification of the administrative court’s decision. He claimed, in particular, that his arguments had not been examined adequately by the court and repeated his arguments regarding the contradictions in the expert report of 6 April 2005. 21.  On 21 September 2005 the Supreme Military Administrative Court refused the applicant’s rectification request by a majority of four to one. 22.  According to a medical report of 9 October 2009 issued by the Haseki Hospital, the applicant was deemed to be suffering from a permanent disability as a result of the loss of sight in his left eye. It was indicated that his ability to work had been reduced by 41% as a result of the disability, and that the applicant was entitled to receive a disability pension.