Communicated on 11 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 19129/13 Ruslan Vladislavovich MAKAROV against Russia lodged on 11 March 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Ruslan Vladislavovich Makarov, is a Russian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mrs I. Khrunova , a lawyer practising in Kazan.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Psychiatric assistance to the applicant in 2004-2012

3 . During the fall of 2004 the applicant assembled several explosive devices with the purpose of extorting money from the commercial banks in order to donate the funds to the orphans. On 25 December 2004 he planted and exploded one of the devices in front of the bank M.; there had been no casualties. He further planted another explosive device equipped with a timer and accompanied by a threatening note, however, it had been disarmed.

4 . The criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant on the charges of terrorism, extortion, and trafficking in arms. In the course of the proceedings the applicant was diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder and on the basis of this diagnosis the Moscow City Court on 7 February 2007 relieved the applicant of the criminal liability and ordered his involuntary hospitalisation and treatment.

5 . On 5 May 2008 the Promyshlenniy District Court of Stavropol conditionally discharged the applicant from the psychiatric facility in the Stavropol Region due to improvements in his mental state, ordering him to follow permanent supervision with the attending psychiatrist. Until June 2009 the applicant complied with the conditions of discharge, but later moved to another region and missed appointments.

6 . On 5 March 2010 the Kislovodskiy Town Court ordered further involuntary hospitalisation and treatment due to violation of the conditions of discharge. Between March and November 2010 he followed a course of treatment in a psychiatric facility in the Stavropol Region with the diagnosis ‘ Schizotypal personality disorder. Remission ’ .

7 . After his discharge the applicant moved to the Republic of Altai, where he registered for psychiatric supervision in the Ust-Koksinskaya Hospital. In April 2012 he was repeatedly diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder in stable remission.

2. Psychiatric assistance to the applicant in 2012-2013

8 . On 14 September 2012, following the request of the local medical services and information received from the municipal authorities, the applicant was apprehended by the police and transferred to the Gorno ‑ Altayskaya Psychiatric Hospital (GAPH). The grounds for the request were refusal of the applicant to undergo planned out-patient treatment, the ideas of revenge and murder aimed at certain regional officials, and the applicant ’ s own complaints about “worsening” of his condition.

9 . On 15 September 2012 a medical counselling panel composed of the resident psychiatrists of the GAPH examined the applicant and diagnosed him with schizotypal personality disorder in decompensation state. The panel also found that the applicant was a danger to himself or others ’ and there was a risk of significant damage to his health due to the deterioration or aggravation of the psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance. The relevant parts of the panel ’ s report read as follows:

“[The report begins with a detailed account of the applicant ’ s personal and medical history with a special accent on the events related to assembly and use of explosive devices and subsequent involuntary treatment in psychiatric facilities.]

[Mr Makarov] refused medication stating that ‘ he has a sufficient supply ’ . Refused planned in-patient treatments. In the last months the attending psychiatrist observed changes in the mental state – mood-swings from depression to hypomania, statements about ‘ social pressure ’ , and conflicts with local and regional public bodies. During the appointments informed about ‘ bad ideas about killing Mr B. [the governor of the region] ’ ...

Mental state. Conscious. Since the admission refused to discuss his condition, actions, behaviour, reasoning it by the fact that ‘ this whole situation is a political conspiracy of Mr B. and his team ’ ; considers medical personnel and doctors to be ‘ accomplices ’ , ‘ you are together with B. ’ s gang ’ . Does not engage in discussion, leaves the doctor ’ s office, slams doors. Refuses to consume food and to give samples for analyses. Suspicious about all statements and actions directed at him.

Conclusion. Considering the clinical history of severe mental disorder, avoidance of in- and out-patient treatment, criminal behaviour in acute mental state in the past, his own complaints about “worsening” of the condition coupled with refusal of a voluntary treatment, the panel [considers the involuntary hospitalisation to a psychiatric facility to be necessary] ... ”

10 . On 17 September 2012 the GAPH applied for a judicial authorisation of the applicant ’ s involuntary hospitalisation under section 29 (a) and (c) of the Psychiatric Assistance Act 1992, since the applicant was a danger to himself or others ’ and there was a risk of significant damage to [his] health due to the deterioration or aggravation of the psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance. On the same day the Gorno-Altayskiy Town Court received the application and extended the applicant ’ s detention until 20 September 2012.

11 . On 19 September 2012 the Gorno-Altayskiy Town Court granted the application for the applicant ’ s involuntary hospitalisation. The hearing was attended by the applicant, his counsel Mr M., the representative of the GAPH, and the prosecutor. Upon the prosecutor ’ s motion the court ordered the hearing to be closed from the public in order to protect the information about the applicant ’ s medical condition, while the applicant himself and his representative objected to it. The relevant parts of the judicial order read as follows:

“[The reasoning of the order begins with a detailed account of the applicant ’ s personal and medical history with a special accent on the events related to assembly and use of explosive devices and subsequent involuntary treatment in psychiatric facilities.]

[According to the medical records] on 7 November 2011 Mr Makarov complained of aggravation of his mental state: tension, restless sleep, gloominess, referred to the need of psychiatric treatment, however refused it due to lack of trust to the doctors ...

Between December 2011 and March 2012 Mr Makarov did not visit his attending psychiatrists despite repeated reminders ...

On 11 July 2012 during the visit to his attending psychiatrist Mr Makarov complained of ‘ bad ideas of killing Mr B. ’ and other persons implicated in making his diagnosis public. Complained of persecution by local media, officials, insisted on obtaining a certificate concerning aggravation of the mental condition. Schizotypal personality disorder in acute state. Refused planned in-patient treatment.

[Further the order provides an account of the applicant ’ s most recent hospitalisation and reproduces the relevant parts of the medical counselling panel report.]

The court considers that the report of the medical counselling panel had been prepared by competent professionals in the relevant field of studies, and due consideration was given to the clinical history of Mr Makarov ... The report contains the criteria [of the severity of Mr Makarov ’ s condition], it states the diagnosis. Having regard to the information obtained through psychiatric observation, the history of criminal behaviour, anxiety, tension and ideas in respect of public officials, the experts concluded that in his current mental state Mr Makarov is a danger to himself or others ’ and there was a risk of significant damage to [his] health due to the deterioration or aggravation of the psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance. There are no reasons to doubt objectivity and impartiality of the experts.

During the hearing Mr Makarov did not contest his diagnosis ... however argued that his disorder is not severe and is in a remission state ... Refused the need for in-patient treatment ... Stated that he needs specialised assistance, but not from the GAPH; in his statements and replies demonstrated denial and aversion towards [any assistance from them] ... Stated that he supressed the need for psychiatric care with will- power ...

It had been established during the hearing that Mr Makarov needs psychiatric assistance, since otherwise he may suffer from severe deterioration of his health, because he suffers from a severe mental disorder, avoids treatment, refuses assistance of attending psychiatrist, his mental condition aggravated, he has aggressive thoughts and ideas, refuses food, refuses voluntary in-patient treatment ... ”

12 . The applicant ’ s counsel Mr M. appealed against the order arguing inter alia (a) that the first instance court failed to demonstrate the need for involuntary hospitalisation and (b) that the application for involuntary hospitalisation was lodged outside of statutory time-limit and thus the applicant was detained without a court order for more than 48 hours.

13 . Almost two months later, on 14 November 2012 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Altay dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court ’ s order finding it to be well-reasoned and lawful. In respect of the applicant ’ s detention beyond 48 hours without an order of a court the Supreme Court stated that the delay had been caused by administration of the GAPH, while the courts complied with the prescribed procedural time-limits.

B. Relevant domestic law

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

COMPLAINTS

15 . The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention that (a) his involuntary placement to a psychiatric facility was unlawful due to the failure of the national authorities to meet the substantive requirements for involuntary hospitalisation; (b) he was detained for more than 48 hours without a court order between 14 and 19 September 2012; and (c) the period for the review on appeal of the judicial authorisation for involuntary hospitalisation was excessively long.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s placement in the Gorno-Altayskaya Psychiatric Hospital for involuntary treatment in 2012 “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 , no. 6301/73, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33)?

2. What was the domestic lawful basis for the applicant ’ s detention between 14 and 19 September 2012?

3. Having regard to the applicant ’ s allegations and position during the hearing of the Gorno-Altayskiy Town Court on 19 September 2012, were there sufficient and valid reasons to close the hearing for the public?

4. Was the applicant ’ s appeal against the judicial authorisation for involuntary hospitalisation of 19 September 2012 examined “speedily” enough, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?