Communicated on 12 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 52084/10 Valentina Ivanovna ZAIKINA against Russia lodged on 13 August 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Ms Valentina Ivanovna Zaikina , is a Russian national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Moscow .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

3. On 3 February 2009, following a number of complaints about an erratic behaviour lodged by the applicant ’ s neighbours, she was apprehended by a police officer and transferred to the Psychiatric Hospital No. 13 of Moscow (Hospital No. 13).

4. On the same day a medical counselling panel composed of the resident psychiatrists of the Hospital No. 1 3 examined the applicant and diagnosed her with paranoid schizophrenia and paranoid syndrome. They concluded that she was a danger to herself and others and recommended involuntary hospitalisation, since she did not consent to treatment.

5. On 11 February 2009 the Lyublinskiy District Court of Moscow granted the application for the applicant ’ s involuntary hospitalisation . The hearing was attended by the applicant, her representative Mrs K ., the representative of the Hospital No. 13, the prosecutor , and a witness Mrs Ke ., who was the applicant ’ s attending psychiatrist. The relevant parts of the judicial order read as follows:

“The Hospital No. 13 lodged an application for involuntary hospitalisation of Mrs Zaikina ... [Since] there are legal grounds [for hospitalisation], Mrs Zaikina requires necessary in-patient treatment and examination because of her mental disorder and because she is a danger to herself and the others...

Mrs Zaikina objected to hospitalisation, because she ‘ feels well ’ .

Mrs K., her representative, objected to granting of the application, since the patient [her client] did not consent to hospitalisation.

The court established that... [ the applicant] suffers from schizophrenia, she was repeatedly hospitalised to the Hospital No. 13. She was admitted to the hospital upon the request of the psychiatrist on duty and the complaints of the neighbours. Mrs Zaikina is aggressive, she had cut all electric wiring in her apartment, crushed windows in the lobby of the apartment-building and scattered the pieces of glass, threatened neighbours, threw trash out of her window, attempted to cut the gas supply, tried to destroy everything. During [medical] examination she stated that she was followed by the employees of emergency services, was highly agitated, aggressive, expressed persistent ideas of persecution, gazed around and then instantaneously turned rigid. Mrs Zaikina was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and paranoid syndrome. She refuses treatment...

The witness Mrs KE, Mrs Zaikina ’ s attending psychiatrist, stated that [the applicant] suffers from schizophrenia, was previously treated in the Hospital No. 13. She does not follow the supportive therapy...

The court agrees with the above conclusions [of the psychiatrists], since it is supported by the clinical history examined at the hearing, medical observation of Mrs Zaikina , witness ’ testimony, which demonstrate legal grounds for involuntary hospitalisation...”

6. After her discharged from the Hospital No. 13 the applicant lodged an appeal against the above court order.

7. On 15 April 2010 the Moscow City Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal essentially re-stating the reasoning of the lower court.

B. Relevant domestic law

8. The relevant provisions of the Russian legislation are reproduced in the judgment Zagidulina v. Russia , no. 11737/06, §§ 21-30, 2 May 2013.

COMPLAINTS

9. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention that her involuntary placement to a psychiatric facility was unlawful due to the failure of the national authorities to meet the substantive requirements for involuntary hospitalisation and the lack of judicial authorisation for her detention between 3 and 11 February 2009.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s placement in the Psychiatric Hospital No. 13 of Moscow for involuntary treatment in 200 9 “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant reliably shown to be of “unsound mind” (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands , 6301/73, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33)?

2. Did the national authorities authorising the applicant ’ s involuntary hospitalisation demonstrate, as required by the applicable provisions of the domestic law, that

(a) the applicant ’ s disorder was ‘ severe ’ ;

(b) the applicant ’ s condition posed ‘ an immediate danger to herself or others ’ ;

(c) there were no other less restrictive measures available?

3. Was the applicant ’ s involuntary placement in the Psychiatric Hospital No. 13 of Moscow between 3 and 11 February 2009 secured by a judicial order as prescribed by the relevant provisions of the domestic law ?