PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KJØLBRO

1 . For the Court to grant compensation for pecuniary damage, there must be a “clear causal connection” between the pecuniary damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention found by the Court (see, inter alia, Çakıcı v. Turkey [GC], no. 23657/94, § 127, ECHR 1999 ‑ IV, Storck v. Germany , no. 61603/00, § 176, ECHR 2005 ‑ V).

2 . In the present case, the Court has found a violation of Article 3 of the Convention “on account of the Government ’ s failure to comply with their positive obligations” (para. 44). More specifically, the Court found that “the Government have failed to discharge their burden of showing that they have complied with their positive obligation to provide the applicant with prompt and appropriate medical assistance for his eye problem” (para. 43). It is undisputed that the applicant went to the regiment ’ s infirmary complaining about severe pain in his left eye on 25 July 2001, and the Government has not been able to prove that the applicant received any medical treatment that day as alleged by the Government but denied by the applicant.

3 . In other words, the basis for finding a violation of Article 3 is the fact that the Government were not able to prove that the applicant received proper medical treatment on 25 July 2001, when he contacted the infirmary of his regiment.

4 . In my view, there is insufficient evidence for saying that there is a “clear causal connection” between the violation found and the applicant ’ s loss of sight in his left eye following the corneal ulcer.

5 . There is insufficient evidence for saying that the corneal ulcer could or should have been diagnosed, had the applicant been examined by a doctor at the infirmary on 25 July 2001. Nor is there sufficient basis for saying that the delay from 25 July 2001 until 2 August 2001, when the applicant was transferred to the Cizre State Hospital, has caused the subsequent loss of sight in his left eye. Thus, on the basis of the information in the file, including the medical expert report of 6 April 2005, the Court cannot say that the corneal ulcer could or should have been diagnosed earlier, or that earlier medical treatment would have saved the sight in the left eye.

6 . In other words, there is insufficient basis for saying that the applicant ’ s loss of eyesight is a direct consequence of medical negligence or malpractice. Therefore, and irrespective of the tragic consequences for the applicant, there is, in my view, insufficient basis for saying that there is a “clear causal connection” between the violation found and the damage claimed.

7 . For those reasons, I voted against granting the applicant compensation for pecuniary damage (points 3(a )( i ) and 3(b) of the operative provisions.

[1] 1. On 1 January 2005 the Turkish lira (“TRY”) entered into circulation, replacing the former Turkish lira (“TRL”). TRY 1 = TRL 1,000,000.