Published on 9 August 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 13459/15 Lyudmyla Grygorivna TYMOSHENKO against Ukraine lodged on 7 March 2015 c ommunicated on 15 July 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the compulsory psychiatric treatment of the applicant in a hospital, ordered by the Kyivskyy District Court of Poltava on 17 July 2014 in the framework of the criminal proceedings against her on the charge of infliction of minor bodily injuries. In the applicant ’ s absence but in the presence of her legal-aid lawyer at the hearing, the court found it established that the applicant inflicted bodily injuries to the victim but was incapable of understanding and controlling her actions as, according to a medical report, she was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia. According to the applicant, her lawyer was not willing to appeal against the above-mentioned decision and she had to lodge an appeal herself. The appeal was left without examination by the courts, as under the relevant domestic law she had no standing to appeal against the decision.

On 3 October 2014 the applicant, who until that date remained at liberty, was convened by the police to a police station, allegedly with a view to be informed of the progress in the investigation of a criminal complaint she had lodged earlier. Once arrived, she was forcefully transferred to a local psychiatric hospital with a view to enforce the decision of 17 July 2014. She was released from the hospital for outpatient treatment on 9 April 2015, and on 17 November 2015 her compulsory psychiatric treatment was terminated by the court.

Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains about an unfair trial in the criminal proceedings against her, mostly because of the failure to ensure her presence before the trial court on 17 July 2014, as well as of the impossibility to appeal against the court ’ s decision delivered against her on that date. For the same reasons, the applicant invoked Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4 of the Convention as well as Article 2 of Protocol No. 7. She also complains about the way her placement to the hospital on 3 October 2014 was performed and that she had no right to initiate the review of the lawfulness of her continued detention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention? Did the delay in the admission of the applicant to the hospital and the way in which her placement to that facility was ensured on 3 October 2014 affect the lawfulness of the deprivation of the applicant ’ s liberty?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the court ’ s decision of 17 July 2014 ordering her compulsory psychiatric detention, as well as initiate the review of the lawfulness of her continued detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? If so, did it ensure the existence of adequate safeguards against arbitrary detention and allow the applicant to initiate the review of her own motion?

3. Can the applicant be considered to have benefited from a fair trial in the proceedings which resulted in the decision on her internment in a psychiatric facility? In particular, were the procedural requirements under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) met in the present case regard being had to the applicant ’ s absence at the trial hearing on 17 July 2014? Was the applicant given the right to participate effectively in the proceedings and defend herself in person? Was she duly informed of the date and time of the hearing of 17 July 2014 (see, mutatis mutandis , G. v. France , no. 27244/09, 23 February 2012)?

4. Given that in its decision of 17 July 2014 the trial court found it proven that the applicant had committed a criminal offence, was she effectively afforded the right of appeal against the court ’ s findings, as envisaged by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 7?

The Government are requested to submit copies of all documents relevant to the case, including those concerning notification of the applicant about the hearing of 17 July 2014.