Resolution CM/ ResDH (2013 ) 7 [1]

S. against Estonia

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

(Application No. 17779/08, judgment of 4 October 2011, final on 4 January 2012)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”),

Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee in the above case and to the violation established (see document DH-DD( 2 013)22E );

Recalling that the respondent State ’ s obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide to by all final judgments in cases to which it has been a party and that this obligation entails, over and above the payment of any sums awarded by the Court, the adoption by the authorities of the respondent State, where required:

- of individual measures to put an end to violations established and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

- of general measures preventing similar violations;

Having invited the government of the respondent State to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its above-mentioned obligation;

Having examined the action report provided by the government indicating the measures adopted in order to give effect to the judgment including the information provided regarding the payment of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court (see document DH-DD(2013)22E );

Having satisfied itself that all the measures required by Article 46, paragraph 1, have been adopted;

DECLARES that it has exe r cised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination thereof.

ACTION REPORT

S. v. Estonia

Application No. 17779/08, Judgment of 4 October 2011

1) Case description :

The case concerned the involuntary internment of the applicant in a psychiatric hospital. The Court noted that Ms S. had been suffering from a mental illness for several years before her hospitalisation in November 2006. Her treatment as an outpatient had been ineffective and she had become violent towards her partner. The relevant Estonian law, the Mental Health Act, was sufficiently clear as to the situations in which compulsory admission for inpatient treatment could be ordered. Ms S. ’ s case had come within those situations. As regards her actual internment, the Court noted that she had not been heard by the court before it authorised her compulsory admission. While that fact alone had not been at odds with domestic law, according to the Code of Civil Procedure, she should have been heard promptly once her confinement had been ordered. However, the court had heard Ms S. only 15 days after it decided to authorise her hospital admission, which – the Estonian Supreme Court had recognised – had been too long and in violation of domestic law. The Court reached the same conclusion. In noted that those 15 days had represented a significant portion of the overall period during which Ms S. had been hospitalised . There had not been any consequences favourable to her, nor any redress, despite the Supreme Court ’ s conclusion of a violation. The Court held that there had, therefore, been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security of person).

2) Individual measures :

No additional individual measures apart from payment of just satisfaction are needed (EUR 5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,118.60 for costs and expenses were paid on 20/02/2012). As can be seen from the judgment the Estonian Supreme Court admitted procedural deficiencies only did not draw any conclusions from that assessment and afforded the applicant no redress. As the Court afforded respective redress in the form of non ‑ pecuniary damage in amount of 5000 euros , the consequences of the violation for the applicant are remedied ( see also para . 3 below; in any other respect the domestic decisions regarding the applicant were justified; it should also be noted that the applicant was discharged from the psychiatric hospital in September 2007 ).

3) General measures :

The judgment of the Court was translated into Estonian and published on the web-site of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ( http://www.vm.ee/?q=taxonomy/term/229 ) and widely disseminated, including to the authorities directly concerned.

No other general measures were necessary to take as the specific violation was of an isolated nature for the following reasons.

The Court in its judgment did not find any deficiencies in the Estonian legal regulation. The Court also noted that it had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the medical opinion and is satisfied that the applicant was shown to have been a “person of unsound mind” whose mental disorder warranted compulsory admission. It also noted that the assessment of the applicant ’ s medical condition and her dangerousness were later confirmed by the forensic psychiatric opinion and other evidence gathered in the course of the criminal proceedings. The Court only found that in the applicant ’ s case the applicant was not detained in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law – it noted that although the Supreme Court found that the 15-day delay that elapsed before the County Court heard the applicant constituted a “violation of the norms of procedure”, it drew no further conclusions from that assessment and afforded the applicant no redress. The Court found that the delay was a violation of the Convention.

Thus, applying the valid legal regulation properly further violations should be avoided.

4) Payment of just satisfaction :

Estonia has submitted relevant information on just satisfaction payment in March 2012.

5) Conclusions of the respondent State :

Estonia has paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment in due time; no additional measures were to be taken as the case was an isolated one. Estonia finds that the judgment is implemented properly and fully and asks to close the examination of the case.

[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 7 March 2013 at the 1164th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies .