Published on 19 April 2021

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 29804/16 Karina Volodymyrivna TSYOGE FON MANTEYFEL against Ukraine lodged on 19 May 2016 communicated on 30 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the compulsory psychiatric treatment of the applicant, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, ordered by the court in the framework of the criminal proceedings against her on charge of murder. The applicant was confined to psychiatric hospitals with different supervision regimes from 23 August 2010 to 14 November 2017. During this period the courts periodically reviewed the applicant ’ s detention on the basis of the hospitals ’ submissions and extended the term of compulsory inpatient treatment. The applicant ’ s appeals against the courts ’ orders as well as her requests for release were not examined by the courts as, under the relevant law, she did not have the locus standi to lodge an appeal or initiate review of the lawfulness of her continued detention.

The latest order for continued compulsory inpatient treatment of the applicant was issued by the Samarskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk on 19 August 2016 and, according to the applicant, expired on 19 February 2017. The requests of the hospital, lodged on 13 January and 19 May 2017, that the applicant continued her compulsory inpatient treatment were eventually dismissed by the court, on 13 May and 2 November 2017 respectively, ordering that the applicant be treated as an outpatient. The decision of 2 November 2017 became final on 10 November 2017.

In May 2017 the applicant ’ s mother and her lawyer, and in November 2017 the applicant herself, lodged criminal complaints against the hospital on account of the failure to release the applicant. According to the applicant, no investigative actions have been conducted within the proceedings.

The applicant complains of her arbitrary psychiatric detention after 19 February 2017, including the four-day delay in the release after the change of her compulsory measure. She also alleges that she did not have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her continued inpatient treatment and request a release. Lastly, the applicant complains of the absence of compensatory remedies in the domestic legislation for her types of situation. She relies on Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 (a) and (e) of the Convention? In particular, does her deprivation of liberty from 19 February until 14 November 2017 (the date of her discharge from hospital) amount to a breach of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention? More precisely:

- was there a lawful basis for the deprivation of the applicant ’ s liberty within this period of time ?

- did the delay in examining the hospital ’ s request of 13 January 2017 that the applicant continued her compulsory inpatient treatment affect the lawfulness of the deprivation of the applicant ’ s liberty given that more than six months had elapsed since the adoption of the previous court decision of 19 August 2016 ordering continued compulsory psychiatric treatment of the applicant?

- did the delay in the examination of the hospital ’ s request of 19 May 2017 to order the extension of the applicant ’ s inpatient treatment affect the lawfulness of the deprivation of the applicant ’ s liberty?

- was a four-day delay in release of the applicant following the court ’ s order of 2 November 2017 in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her continued detention for compulsory medical treatment, 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 judicial review of that detention, including by lodging a request for release, of her own motion (see X. v. Finland , no.34806/04, § 170, 3 July 2012)?

3. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for her confinement in alleged breach of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to inform the Court of the outcome of the criminal proceedings instituted following the complaints lodged by the applicant and her lawyer and provide copies of the relevant documents.