Communicated on 16 April 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 69747/13 O.G. (VIII) against Latvia lodged on 21 October 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr O.G , is a Latvian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in R i ga .

A. The circumstances of the case

1. Facts leading to the present case

2. Certain factual information concerning the events leading to the present applicant is to be found in the case O.G. v. Latvia , no. 66095/09 , § § 6-41, 23 September 2014, and the parties ’ observations submitted in that case. In particular, concerning the two sets of criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant.

3 . In the course of the first set of criminal proceedings which were initiated against the applicant on 3 March 2004 for Internet fraud, on 18 February 2008 the Riga Regional Court decided to relieve the applicant of criminal liability and imposed a compulsory measure of a medical nature – outpatient treatment in a medical institution. On 25 May 2011 Riga City Vidzeme District Court decided not to change the compulsory measure.

4. As a result of the second set of criminal proceedings which were initiated against the applicant on 1 March 2007, by Riga Regional Court ’ s decision dated 20 August 2008 the applicant was relieved of criminal liability. With the same decision the applicant ’ s inpatient treatment in a psychiatric hospital was ordered. On 27 May 2010 the same court ordered the applicant ’ s outpatient treatment in a psychiatric hospital.

2. Applicant ’ s internment into psychiatric hospital from 17 to 19 June 2013

5. T he particular facts of the complaint , as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows .

6. On 17 June 2013 a police officer arrived at the applicant ’ s home and brought him to the ambulatory treatment section of the psychiatric hospital of Riga ( VSIA “ Rīgas psihiatrijas un narkoloģijas centrs ” ). It appears that upon the doctor ’ s decision the applicant was ordered to undergo inpatient medical treatment in a psychiatric hospital. On the same day, accompanied by the police officers, the applicant was brought to the inpatient section of the same hospital and admitted to the inpatient treatment. He was released from the hospital on 19 June 2013.

3. Complaints against admission to the psychiatric hospital

7. On 26 June 2013 the applicant complained to the Office of the Prosecutor General about the circumstances of his bringing and allegedly unlawful internment in a psychiatric hospital. He asked to initiate criminal proceedings against the police officers and the doctors.

8. On 19 July 2013 the Internal Security Office of the State Police ( Valsts policijas Iekšējās drošības birojs ) dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint. The decision stated that on 11 June 2013 the police office in Teika had received a request from the psychiatric hospital of Riga asking the police to render assistance in executing the Riga Regional Cou rt’s decision dated 18 February 2008. The request contained information that since 15 April 2013 the applicant had been evading the medical treatment ordered to him by a court ’ s decision. The Internal Security Office further concluded that the police officers had acted in accordance with section 11 paragraph 3 of the Law on Police (see domestic law, below). On 2 August 2013 a formal decision was taken not to institute criminal proceedings against police officers who had brought the applicant to the psychiatric hospital.

9. Upon the appeal by the applicant against the decision not to institute criminal proceedings, on 16 August 2013 the Office of the Prosecutor General upheld the contested decision. In the decision it was stated that on 20 August 2008 the Riga Regional Court applied to the applicant a compulsory measure - inpatient treatment in a hospit al. The above measure on 27 May 2010 was changed to an inpatient treatment, and as such was upheld by a court’s decision of 28 May 2012. As the applicant had failed to comply with the measure the representatives of the psychiatric hospital had grounds to ask for an assistance of the police in executing the above decision.

B. Relevant domestic law

10. Section 11 of the Law on Police ( Likums par policiju ) lists the duties of police officers, inter alia :

“Police officers, within the scope of their competence, have the duty to assist:

3) medical institutions, medical personnel, public health service epidemiologists and State health inspectors – in the forcible conveyance for monitoring or treatment of persons suffering from alcohol, narcotic, psychotropic or toxic substances addiction or venereal diseases, persons who are mentally i ll and a danger to the public, ... , if they avoid coming to a medical institution;

11. The relevant parts of the Criminal Procedure Law pertaining to compulsory medical measures are summarised in O.G. v. Latvia , no. 66095/09 , 23 September 2014.

12. The relevant parts of the Medical Treatment Law have been summarised in O.G. (II) v. Latvia (Statement of Facts; communicated to the Government on 16 January 2014.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that from 17 to 19 June 2013 he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty. He invoked in particular that he was not informed about any reasons and a decision based on which the police officers arrived at his home and brought him to a psychiatric hospital. According to the applicant there has been no court decision authorising the police officers to bring him to a psychiatric hospital; there has also been no court decision to subject him to an inpatient treatment there.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Was the applicant deprived of h is liberty with in the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention from 17 to 19 June 2013 ?

2. If so, w as that deprivation of liberty in conformity wit h the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Was it “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”? Was it justified under one or more sub-paragraphs of Article 5 § 1?