Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 76

June 2005

Storck v. Germany - 61603/00

Judgment 16.6.2005 [Section III]

Article 5

Article 5-1

Deprivation of liberty

Placement in a private clinic without a legal basis: violation

Article 8

Article 8-1

Respect for private life

Interference with physical integrity by forced medical treatment: violation

Facts : The applicant claimed that she had been placed in different psychiatric hospitals against her will, and that she had been wrongly diagnosed and forced to take medicaments that had ruined her physically and psychologically. Moreover, the medicaments had caused her to develop a post-poliomyelitis syndrome (an illness which she had suffered at the age of three) and she was presently 100% handicapped. Her main complaint concerned her placement in a locked ward of a private psychiatric institution in Bremen, from 1977 to 1979, at the demand of her father, following serious conflicts with her parents. At the time she was 18 years old, had not been placed under guardianship and had never signed a declaration consenting to her placement in that institution. Moreover, there had been no judicial decision authorising her detention in a psychiatric institution. On one occasion the applicant had tried to flee from the clinic but had been brought back by the police by force. In 1981, she had again been confined to this institution for some months. In 1991 and 1992, the applicant received treatment in the university clinic in Mainz. In 1994, a medical report prepared on the applicant’s demand certified that she had at no point suffered from schizophrenia, and that her excessive behaviour had resulted especially from conflicts with her family (a second expert opinion confirmed these findings). In 1997, the applicant brought an action for damages against the private clinic in Bremen. The Regional Court allowed the action and found that her detention had been illegal, as it had not been ordered by a district court nor had the applicant given her consent. Therefore, the court found that the applicant was entitled to damages. However, the judgment was quashed by the Court of Appeal, which found that the applicant had implicitly concluded a contract on her medical treatment with the clinic, or that there had been an implicit contractual agreement between her father and the clinic concluded implicitly for her benefit. Likewise, it did not find that the treatment or dosage of medicaments had been erroneous. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the Court of Appeal’s decision, claiming that her rights to liberty and human dignity and her right to a fair trial had been violated. The Constitutional Court refused to entertain the complaints, holding that they were not of fundamental importance and that it was not its function to deal with errors of law allegedly committed by civil courts.

Law : The Government’s preliminary objection ( res iudicata ): As the Court had set out in its decision on admissibility of October 2004, despite the fact that a committee had previously declared the application inadmissible, in exceptional circumstances and in the interests of justice, the Court had the power to reopen a case.

Article 5 § 1 (concerning the applicant’s confinement in a private clinic from 1977 to 1979) – The applicant’s factual situation in the clinic was largely undisputed, and she could therefore be considered as having been objectively deprived of her liberty. However, a subjective element of lack of consent to the confinement in question is also required for a breach of this provision to exist, and this aspect was at dispute between the parties. In this respect, it was established that the applicant had not signed the clinic’s admission form. Moreover, the key factor for the Court was that the she had on several occasions tried to flee from the clinic. The Court was therefore unable to assume that the applicant had agreed to her continued stay in the clinic. In the alternative, assuming the applicant had no longer been capable of consenting following her treatment with strong medicaments, she could, in any event, not be considered as having validly agreed to stay in the clinic. Hence, the Court concluded that the applicant had been deprived of her liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1.

Responsibility of the State – As to whether the deprivation of liberty could be imputable to the State, the Court underlined three aspects which engaged Germany’s responsibility under the Convention. Firstly, public authorities had been directly involved in the applicant’s placement in the clinic when the police, by force, had brought her back to the clinic after she had fled. Secondly, the State could be found to have violated Article 5 § 1 in that the Court of Appeal had failed to interpret the provisions of civil law relating to the applicant’s compensation claims in the spirit of Article 5. Thirdly, the State had also violated its positive obligations to protect the applicant against interferences with her liberty carried out by private persons. There had been no court order for her placement in the clinic and a public health officer had never assessed whether the applicant – what was more than doubtful – posed a serious threat to public safety. Consequently, the State had not exercised any supervisory control over the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention in the clinic. The lack of effective State control was most strikingly shown by the use of force by the police to bring the applicant back to the clinic.

Lawfulness of the detention – The applicant had been deprived of her liberty against her will. Under these circumstances, German law required that the detention of mentally insane persons, mentally deficient persons or drug addicts was only lawful when it had been ordered by the competent district court. As there had been no court order authorising the applicant’s confinement to the clinic, her detention had not been lawful and it was therefore unnecessary to decide whether the applicant suffered from a mental disorder of a kind warranting compulsory confinement. In conclusion, the applicant’s confinement in a private clinic from 1977 to 1979 had breached her right to liberty as guaranteed by Article 5 § 1.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Articles 5 § 4 and 5 § 5 (concerning the applicant’s confinement in a private clinic from 1977 to 1979). The applicant’s complaints under these provisions were essentially the same as those raised under Article 5 § 1, and covered by the Court’s findings there under. Hence, no separate issues arose under them.

Article 8 – The applicant had constantly resisted her stay in the clinic, as well as the medical treatment, and at times was administered medicaments by force. Bearing in mind that even a minor interference with the physical integrity of an individual must be regarded as an interference with the right to respect for private life, the applicant’s treatment carried out against her will had constituted an interference under this provision, irrespective of whether the treatment had been counter-indicated, as maintained by the applicant and corroborated by at least one expert.

Responsibility of the State – The interference with the applicant’s private life could be imputable to the State for the same reasons as those above in respect of Article 5 § 1: the involvement of public authorities when the police brought her back to the clinic; the failure of the courts to interpret national law in the spirit of Article 8; and, the lack of effective State control over private psychiatric institutions, which implied the State’s failure to comply with its positive obligations under this Article.

Justification – The interference with the applicant’s private life had not been in accordance with the law. Her confinement to the clinic for medical treatment had not been authorised by a court order, as was required by German law in the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the interference with her private life had not been lawful within the meaning of Article 8 § 2.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 75,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes