Communicated on 16 June 2020 Published on 6 July 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 12894/20 Anton Gennadyevich MOROZOV against Russia lodged on 4 March 2020

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Anton Gennadyevich Morozov , is a Russian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Zelenograd , Moscow.

2 . In 2016 the applicant was charged with aggravated robbery committed with violence. In the course of the preliminary investigation the applicant underwent an out-patient forensic psychiatric assessment. On 28 November 2016 the panel of psychiatrists issued a report, which concluded that the applicant suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and required involuntary psychiatric treatment. The report stated that due to the applicant ’ s mental state he was unable to independently exercise his procedural rights and required services of a legal counsel.

3 . On 10 April 2017 the Zelenogradskiy District Court of Moscow 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 stated with reference to the above psychiatric assessment report that the applicant had acted in a state of insanity and required treatment. Accordingly, the District Court ordered the applicant ’ s involuntary treatment in a psychiatric facility.

4 . On 5 July 2017 the applicant ’ s appeal was dismissed by the Moscow City Court.

5 . On 27 May 2019 the panel of psychiatrists issued a report, which concluded that despite certain improvements in the applicant ’ s mental state the nature and duration of the remission had not been sufficient for termination of the treatment. On 17 June 2019 the administration of the psychiatric facility applied to the court for extension of the period of involuntary treatment with reference to the above report.

6 . On 5 August 2019 the Chekhovskiy Town Court of Moscow Region granted the application and extended the period of treatment by six months. The Town Court heard the applicant, his mother acting as a representative, a defence counsel, a prosecutor and a representative of the psychiatric facility, and examined available documentary evidence. During the hearing the applicant requested an independent psychiatric assessment referring to the significant time which had lapsed since his assessment in May 2019, and challenging the viability of his treatment. The trial court dismissed the request.

7 . On 17 September 2019 the Moscow Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. The Regional Court heard the applicant ’ s mother acting as a representative, an appointed defence counsel and a prosecutor, and examined available documentary evidence. The applicant was absent during the hearing despite his written request to ensure his presence. The Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s mother ’ s requests to conduct an independent psychiatric assessment and to examine a witness on the applicant ’ s behalf. According to the applicant he had never met his appointed defence counsel, who had remained passive during the hearing.

COMPLAINTS

8 . The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention about the lack of reasons for his involuntary treatment in a psychiatric facility. He further complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) and (d) about 1) his absence during the appeal hearing in the Moscow Regional Court, 2) defects in the services of the defence counsel appointed to him, 3) the refusal to call a witness on his behalf and to conduct an independent psychiatric assessment.

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 Chekhovskiy Town Court adopted on 5 August 2019? 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. Given the passage of time between the adoption of the report by the panel of psychiatrists on 27 May 2019 and the decision of 5 August 2019 extending the applicant ’ s involuntary treatment, did the national authorities satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands (24 October 1979, §§ 37-40, Series A no. 33)?

3. Were the proceedings for the extension of the applicant ’ s involuntary treatment rendered arbitrary within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention by the applicant ’ s absence during the appeal hearing in the Moscow Regional Court, the quality of the legal services provided by the appointed counsel and/or the refusal of the national courts to grant his requests to call a witness and conduct an independent psychiatric assessment?

4. 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 10 April 2017 and subsequent extensions of 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)?

5. If so, was the applicant ’ s right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention violated during the appeal hearing in the Moscow Regional Court on 17 September 2019? In particular, the parties are requested to comment on the applicant ’ s absence during that hearing, the quality of the legal services provided by the appointed counsel and/or the refusal of the national courts to grant his requests to call a witness and conduct an independent psychiatric assessment.