Communicated on 11 March 2015

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 9139/08 V.K. against Russia lodged on 1 February 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant is a Russian national, who was born in 1946 and lives in St Petersburg. He is represented before t he Court by Mr D. Bartenev , Mrs B. Bukovska , and Mr Y. Marc henko , lawyers practising in St Petersburg and Budapest.

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 April 2007 the applicant was involuntarily admitted in St Petersburg ’ s City Psychiatric Hospital No. 3 (Hospital No. 3); the transfer was requested by the local police officer, who alleged that the applicant made repeated ungrounded phone calls to the police.

4. On the same day a medical counselling panel composed of the resident psychiatrists of the Hospital No. 3 examined the applicant and diagnosed him with the organic mental disorder coupled with psychiatric disorder and paranoid personality disorder. 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 patient had a habit of heavily intoxicating himself with alcohol, suffered from a cranial trauma. Psychiatric disorders since 1979. Clinical history [shows] behavioural deviations including affective instability, querulous ideas of relevance and persecution amounting to delusions. [He] was frequently treated in psychiatric facilities due to aggressive and auto-aggressive tendencies in the context of acute morbid emotional experiences. Hospitalisations were, as a rule, ‘ involuntary ’ .

In the course of the clinical development the organic defects have become predominant manifesting themselves through circumstantiality, coarsening of emotions, and exacerbation of querulous tendencies. The current hospitalisation is due to inadequate behaviour: informed the police of planted explosives, conflicts with [nomadic tribes], called for emergency medical services and at their arrival threatened the personnel, behaved inadequately towards women.

During examination – fully oriented, answers questions in detail. ‘ Cheesy ’ . Believes that he is being persecuted by police, because he is ‘ a person of Stalinist era, and they do not want to work ’ , not critical towards [his] behaviour, ideas of relevance and persecution do not receive correction. Denies perceptive illusions.

Having regard to the lack of critical attitude towards the wrong behaviour, presence of ideas of relevance and persecution, [it] may be concluded that he falls under section 29 (a) and (c) of the Law of the Russian Federation on Psychiatric Assistance and Guarantees of Citizens ’ Rights Related to Its Administration of 1992 (“the Psychiatric Assistance Act 1992”).”

5. On 4 April 2007 the Hospital No. 3 applied for 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.

6. On 9 April 2007 the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg granted the application for the applicant ’ s involuntary hospitalisation. The hearing was attended by the applicant, a court-appointed legal aid counsel Mrs L., the psychiatrists, and the prosecutor. The relevant parts of the judicial order read as follows:

“... The recommendation for hospitalisation was issued... due to presence of a severe psychiatric disorder, which causes significant damage to [his] health due to the deterioration or aggravation of the psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance.

Upon admission to the Hospital No. 3 Mr V.K. did not consent to hospitalisation, since he refused treatment.

On 3 April 2007 he was examined by a panel of psychiatrists, who established that [he is] fully oriented, answers questions in detail, believes that he is being persecuted by police, because he is ‘ a person of Stalinist era, and they do not want to work ’ , not critical towards [his] behaviour, ideas of relevance and persecution do not receive correction, denies perceptive illusions. On the basis of the collected data the panel concluded that Mr V.K. ’ s in-patient treatment is necessary. The court has no grounds to doubt the conclusions of the panel ’ s report. There is no evidence to the contrary.

Having considered the case materials, having heard the opinion of the doctors, the counsel Mrs, L, who considered the [applicant ’ s] in-patient treatment to be reasonable, the opinion of the prosecutor... the court concludes that the application of the Hospital No. 3 chief physician is well-founded, since Mr V.K. suffers from a severe disorder, which predetermines existence of a risk of significant damage to [his] health due to the deterioration or aggravation of the psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance.”

7. On 25 April 2007 the applicant, represented by Mr D. Bartenev , a lawyer practising in St Petersburg, filed an appeal against the order of 9 April 2007, stating inter alia that the legal aid counsel Mrs L. failed to duly perform her functions. On the same day the applicant was released from Hospital No. 3.

8. On 2 August 2007 the applicant ’ s appeal was summarily dismissed by a manifestly concise decision of the St Petersburg City Court. The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:

“... The [lower] court granting the application concluded that there were reasons for Mr V.K. ’ s involuntary hospitalisation.

The court ’ s conclusion relied on the submitted evidence... [It is] proven by the report of the panel of Hospital No. 3 resident psychiatrists, which describes Mr V.K. ’ s condition and confirms existence of a severe psychiatric disorder, which predetermines existence of 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 arguments in the statement of appeal that legal aid counsellor Mrs L. did not duly discharge her professional functions may not serve as a ground for annulment of the order, which is lawful on the merits ...”

B. Relevant domestic law

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

COMPLAINT

10. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention that 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 and the procedural defects in the judicial authorisation of his hospitalisation.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s placement in St Petersburg ’ s City Psychiatric Hospital No. 3 for involuntary treatment in 2007 “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. 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 himself or others ’ and/or ‘ significant damage to [his] health due to the deterioration or aggravation of the psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance ’ ;

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

3. Were the relevant proceedings before the domestic courts fair and adversarial as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular was the applicant provided with the effective legal assistance by the legal aid representative Mrs L.? Did the domestic courts comply with their obligation to ensure due judicial review of the application for the applicant ’ s involuntary hospitalisation?