THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 10586/07 A.Y. against Russia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24 May 2022 as a Committee composed of:

Darian Pavli, President, Andreas Zünd, Mikhail Lobov, judges, and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 10586/07) against Russia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 27 January 2007 by a Russian national, Mr A.Y., who was born in 1972 and lives in Nizhniy Novgorod (“the applicant”) who was represented by Ms O. Sadovskaya, a lawyer practising in Nizhniy Novgorod;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Russian Government (“the Government”), initially represented by Mr G. Matyushkin and Mr M. Galperin, former Representatives of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights, and later by their successor in this office, Mr M. Vinogradov;

the parties’ observations;

the decision to grant the applicant anonymity ex officio (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court);

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The case concerns the applicant’s non-participation in the proceedings regarding his involuntary placement in a psychiatric facility.

2. On 4 October 2005 the applicant, who suffered from schizophrenia, was arrested on charges of rape and manslaughter. He was subsequently placed in a psychiatric facility in accordance with the forensic experts’ recommendation of 20 December 2005. On 15 May 2006 the district prosecutor forwarded the applicant’s case to the Sormovskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod noting, with reference to the forensic experts’ opinion, that the applicant was unfit to stand trial and asking the court to commit him to involuntary treatment in a psychiatric facility.

3 . On 5 July 2006 the District Court found that the applicant had committed dangerous acts as charged by the prosecution. It further found, relying on the experts’ report, that he was mentally incompetent to be held liable for those acts and ordered his involuntary treatment in a psychiatric facility. The applicant’s counsel and his mother acting as his representative took part in the hearing. The applicant did not attend.

4. On 25 August 2006 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the decision of 5 July 2006 on appeal. The applicant’s brother acting as his representative attended the hearing. Neither the applicant nor his legal counsel appeared before the court.

5 . On 4 August 2011 the Leninskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod took the decision to release the applicant.

6. On 16 January 2013 the Presidium of the Regional Court noted that the applicant’s case had been examined in his counsel’s absence, quashed the judgment of 25 August 2006 by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh examination to the appellate court.

7. On 5 March 2013 the Regional Court held a new hearing and upheld the decision of 5 July 2006 on appeal. The applicant’s brother acting as his representative and legal counsel attended the hearing and made submissions to the court on the applicant’s behalf. The applicant did not attend.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

8. The applicant complained under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention that he was unable to take part in the proceeding in which the domestic courts decided to commit him to a psychiatric facility for involuntary treatment.

9. Being the master of characterisation to be given in law to the facts of the case (see Radomilja and others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, § 126, 20 March 2018), the Court considers that the applicant’s complaints should be examined from the standpoint of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention.

10. The Court reiterates that Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention also affords procedural safeguards related to the judicial decisions authorising a person’s involuntary hospitalisation (see M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2) , no. 75450/12, § 114-15, 19 February 2015). The notion of “lawfulness” requires a fair and proper procedure offering the person concerned sufficient protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty (see V.K. v. Russia , no. 9139/08, § 33, 4 April 2017, and X v. Finland , no. 34806/04, § 148, ECHR 2012 (extracts), with further references).

11. The proceedings leading to the involuntary placement of an individual in a psychiatric facility must thus provide effective guarantees against arbitrariness given the vulnerability of individuals suffering from mental disorders and the need to adduce very weighty reasons to justify any restriction of their rights (see M.S. v. Croatia , cited above, § 147).

12. It is essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation. This implies that an individual confined in a psychiatric institution should, unless there are special circumstances, receive legal assistance in the proceedings relating to the continuation, suspension or termination of his confinement (see M.S. v. Croatia , cited above, §§ 152 ‑ 53, and N. v. Romania , no. 59152/08, § 196, 28 November 2017).

13. The mere appointment of a lawyer, without that lawyer actually providing legal assistance in the proceedings, could not satisfy the requirements of necessary “legal assistance” for persons confined as being of “unsound mind”. An effective legal representation of persons with disabilities requires an enhanced duty of supervision of their legal representatives by the competent domestic courts (see M.S. v. Croatia , § 154, and V.K. v. Russia , §§ 38-40, both cited above).

14. Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court observes that, even though the applicant did not take part in the proceedings before the District Court, his interests were safeguarded by a professional lawyer providing legal assistance in the proceedings and by his mother acting as his representative (see paragraph 3 above). There is no indication that such representation had not been effective, as required by the Convention standards. As to the appeal hearing of 25 August 2006 from which both the applicant and his counsel were absent, the relevant decision was quashed and remitted for fresh consideration to the appeal court, precisely for that reason. Both the applicant’s brother and the applicant’s lawyer were present at the new appeal hearing on 5 March 2013, thus providing redress to this particular concern (see paragraph 7 above).

15. The Court also notes that at the time of the new appeal hearing the applicant was no longer in detention (see paragraph 5 above). He did not claim that he had been unaware of the date and time of the hearing or that he had been prevented from attending it.

16. Regard being had to the above, the Court considers that, in the light of all the material in its possession, this application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 16 June 2022.

Olga Chernishova Darian Pavli Deputy Registrar President