Communicated on 16 November 2020 Published on 7 December 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 50223/18 Mikhail Nikolayevich BAGIN against Russia lodged on 5 October 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Mikhail Nikolayevich Bagin , is a Russian national, who was born in 1986.

2 . In 2017 the applicant was charged with collecting wild-growing cannabis and preparing it for use as a drug. On 23 July 2017 during the search in the applicant ’ s residence 89 grams of dry cannabis were discovered.

3 . On 22 August 2017 a panel of psychiatrists concluded that the applicant could not understand his actions and control them due to organic personality disorder aggravated by alcohol addiction (second stage). Referring to the applicant ’ s mental state they recommended the applicant ’ s involuntary treatment in a psychiatric facility.

4 . On 27 April 2018 the Sysertskiy District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region adopted a decision ( постановление ), which established all factual and objective elements of the relevant events and concluded that the impugned acts had been committed by the applicant. The decision relieved the applicant of criminal liability with reference to the above psychiatric assessment report that the applicant had acted in a state of insanity and required treatment. The District Court ordered the applicant ’ s involuntary treatment in a psychiatric facility.

5 . The applicant alleges that during the hearing the trial court refused to admit into the relevant evidence the information on the changes in the state of his mental health and the psychiatric treatment during the eight months following the issuance of the psychiatric assessment report.

6 . The applicant ’ s appeal was dismissed by the Sverdlovsk Regional Court on 8 June 2018, i.e. 1 month and 11 days after the adoption of the trial court ’ s decision.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the period of the appeal review in his case has been excessively long. He further complains under Article 6 and in substance under Article 5 that the national courts ordering his involuntary hospitalisation have not considered the changes in the state of his mental health and the psychiatric treatment during the eight months following the issuance of the psychiatric assessment report of 22 August 2017.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention by the decision of the Sysertskiy District Court of the Sverdlovsk Region of 27 April 2018? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within subparagraphs (a) or (e) of this provision (see Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 117, ECHR 2008, referring to Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium , no. 7906/77, § 35, 24 June 1982, and Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 126-134, 4 December 2018)?

2. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil or criminal head applicable to the proceedings leading to the adoption of the decision of 27 April 2018 and the applicant ’ s placement to a psychiatric facility (see Antoine v. the United Kingdom ( dec. ), no. 62960/00, 13 May 2003; Vasenin v. Russia no. 48023/06, § 130, 21 June 2016; and Hodžić v. Croatia , no. 28932/14, §§ 36-54, 4 April 2019)?

3. If the proceedings leading to the adoption of the decision of 27 April 2018 fell under the criminal head of Article 6 of the Convention and, consequently, the applicant ’ s deprivation of liberty fell within subparagraph (a) of Article 5 of the Convention:

(a) Were the guarantees of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention applicable to the allegedly lengthy procedure for the appeal review of the above decision (see Stollenwerk v. Germany , no. 8844/12 , §§ 35-37, 7 September 2017 with further references)?

(b) If yes, was the length of the appeal review compatible with the guarantees of that provision?

4. If the proceedings leading to the adoption of the decision of 27 April 2018 fell under the civil head of Article 6 of the Convention and, consequently, the applicant ’ s deprivation of liberty fell within subparagraph (e) of Article 5 of the Convention:

(a) Were the domestic courts ’ reliance on the psychiatric assessment report of 22 August 2017 and the refusal to consider the information on the applicant ’ s more recent medical treatment compatible with the requirement under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention to reliably show the existence of a mental disorder warranting compulsory confinement at the date of detention?

(b) Was the length of the appeal review of the above decision compatible with the guarantees of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?