Communicated on 12 May 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 60157/15 M. B . against Poland lodged on 30 November 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr M. B., is a Polish national who was born in 1985 and lives in Cracow. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. KÅ‚adoczny and Mr M. Szwed , lawyers from the Helsinki Foundation in Warsaw.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In January 2014 the applicant attacked his parents with a knife. Following this incident the Trzebnica District Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against him on charges of physical assault.

On 17 January and 3 February 2014 the applicant was examined by two psychiatrists and a psychologist. On the latter date they issued a joint medical opinion. They concluded that the applicant suffered from a paranoid schizophrenic delusional disorder and could not participate in the criminal proceedings against him.

On 28 March 2014 the Trzebnica District Prosecutor asked the Trzebnica District Court to discontinue the proceedings against the applicant on the grounds that he could not be held criminally responsible as he was of unsound mind.

Subsequently, on 5 May 2014 the applicant voluntarily started treatment at the Hostel- inkubator samodzielno ś ci (“the hostel”) an institution in Gda ń sk for young people suffering from schizophrenia.

At a hearing held on 1 July 2014 the psychiatrists confirmed their previous conclusions that the applicant should be placed in a closed psychiatric institution.

On 5 August 2014 the applicant submitted a certificate from the hostel, which confirmed that as of 6 May 2014 he had been taking his medication regularly and having therapy and had not experienced any delusional episodes or hallucinations.

At a hearing held on 12 January 2015 the Trzebnica District Court heard evidence from the psychologist and the director of the hostel. It also questioned the psychiatrists who had stated that the applicant should be placed in a closed psychiatric institution.

On 19 January 2015 the Trzebnica District Court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant, giving brief reasons. The court established that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged. However, he could not be held criminally responsible as he had been suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. It further referred to the experts ’ opinion and ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital.

On 6 February 2015 the applicant ’ s lawyer appealed. He provided further evidence relating to the alleged improvement in his condition.

On 11 May 2015 the Wroc Å‚ aw Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision. The court relied on the reasons given by the District Court, noted that the experts had confirmed that the applicant should be placed in a closed psychiatric institution and stressed that there was no need to obtain any further expert opinions.

On 4 August 2015 the applicant was placed in Cracow Psychiatric Hospital.

On 20 November 2015 the Ombudsman lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court on the applicant ’ s behalf.

On 4 February 2016 psychiatrists from the Cracow hospital submitted an opinion on the applicant ’ s condition following a periodic review. They noted that he was calmer, respected hospital rules (“ regulamin szpitala ”) and accepted the need to continue treatment. However, the improvement was not stable and there was still a risk that he might commit a similar offence. Consequently, it was necessary to keep him in hospital.

On 12 April 2016 the Trzebnica District Court extended the applicant ’ s detention. Referring to the opinion of the Cracow hospital doctors, the court held that the applicant should continue treatment in a psychiatric hospital.

At the request of the applicant ’ s parents, he was examined by private psychiatrists and a psychologist on 2 April and 18 April 2016 respectively. They concluded that the risk of the applicant committing a similar offence was low. Moreover, his condition had improved and he could be treated as an outpatient.

On 23 May 2016 the Trzebnica District Court again extended the applicant ’ s detention in the psychiatric hospital.

On 27 July 2016 the applicant submitted an application for a change of preventive measure to outpatient treatment in Gda Å„ sk , where he had lived before being placed in hospital in Cracow.

On 22 November 2016 the Trzebnica District Court ordered that the applicant be released from hospital. It also held that the applicant should continue treatment at an institution in Gda Å„ sk .

The applicant ’ s representative has stated that he was released from hospital on 30 November 2016 and that treatment began on 29 December 2016.

On 20 March 2017 the Trzebnica District Court granted an application by the applicant to continue outpatient treatment at an institution in Cracow.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The conditions for detaining people of unsound mind, who are not criminally responsible on medical grounds, are laid down in the Polish Criminal Code of 1997:

Article 93

“A court may impose a preventive measure as provided for in this chapter, which involves committal to a secure medical institution, only if necessary in order to prevent the repeated commission of a prohibited act by an offender suffering from mental illness ... mental impairment, or addiction to alcohol or other narcotic drugs. Before imposing such a measure, the court shall hear evidence from psychiatrists and a psychologist ...”

Article 94

“1. If an offender has committed a prohibited act in a state of insanity as specified in Article 31 § 1, causing significant harm to the community, and there is a high probability that he will commit such an act again, the court shall commit him to a suitable psychiatric institution.

2. The duration of the stay at the institution shall not be fixed in advance; the court shall release the offender from the institution if his stay there is no longer deemed necessary.

3. A court can again order the committal of an offender (as specified in paragraph 1) to a suitable psychiatric institution if it is advisable in the light of the circumstances specified in paragraph 1 or Article 93; such an order may not be issued more than five years after release from an institution.”

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention that he was unlawfully detained in a psychiatric hospital.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was he reliably shown to be “of unsound mind” and w a s his deprivation of liberty betwee n 4 August 2015 and 30 November 2016 justified under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention?