Communicated on 9 February 2015

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 40535/14 Gregor Å TRLEKAR against Slovenia lodged on 15 May 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Gregor Å trlekar , is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Ljubljana . He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Verce , a lawyer practising in Ljubljana .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant has suffered from a psychotic disorder since 2008. He has complained about a memory loss, of hearing voices and having suicidal thoughts. The applicant has mainly received outpatient psychiatric treatment; however, his condition has steadily worsened. In 2010, he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital due to a delusional disorder and suicidal thoughts, but left the hospital after a week. Subsequently, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

On 9 August 2013 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed several counts of aggravated theft. In the period from January to April 2013, the applicant had allegedly stolen or attempted to steal merchandise from three supermarkets in complicity with another person.

On 10 August 2013 the applicant was brought before the investigating judge of the Ljubljana District Court who, on the basis of the evidence presented by the competent state prosecutor, established that reasonable suspicion existed to warrant judicial investigation against the applicant. Moreover, the investigating judge considered that, the applicant having already been convicted five times for criminal offences against property in the past two years, he posed the risk of reoffending. Hence, she ordered him to be placed in pre-trial detention for the period of one month. The detention order was subsequently extended.

From 10 August until 21 October 2013 the applicant was detained in the remand section of Ljubljana prison. During this time, he was hospitalised in the Ljubljana Psychiatric Clinic from 15 until 20 August due to a suicide attempt. According to his medical records, the applicant confirmed having suicidal thoughts; it was also established that he had attempted to kill himself before. During his stay at the Clinic, the applicant avoided taking the prescribed medication and attempted to escape through the dining room window.

On 30 August 2013 the applicant ’ s court appointed counsel wrote a letter to the remand section of the Ljubljana prison, informing the authorities that the applicant had written a number of letters to her in which he mentioned suicidal thoughts. Thus, the counsel asked the prison authorities to provide her with a copy of the applicant ’ s medical documents and to inform her of his mental condition.

On 16 September 2013 the investigating judge of the Ljubljana District Court appointed an expert in psychiatry to give his opinion on whether the applicant was capable of understanding the nature and effect of his actions at the time of the events at issue and whether he was capable of participating in the proceedings, given his mental condition.

On 22 September 2013 the expert gave his opinion based on an interview with the applicant and his medical records. Having established that the applicant came from a highly dysfunctional family where his basic emotional and educational needs had not been met, as a consequence of which he was underdeveloped emotionally and psychologically, the expert took the view that, in addition to having a psychotic disorder with the symptoms of schizophrenia, the applicant also suffered from an antisocial personality disorder. It was mostly that disorder which had prompted the applicant to act in violation of the law. Although according to the expert, the applicant ’ s capacity to understand and control his behaviour had been somewhat diminished at the time of the events at issue, the criminal offences he was charged with were not related to his psychological condition, but rather to his personality disorder. However, as the applicant did suffer from psychotic episodes, the expert was of the view that he should be admitted to a forensic psychiatric unit where his condition could be adequately monitored and treated.

On 22 October 2013 the applicant was transferred to the forensic psychiatric unit of the Maribor University Medical Centre (hereinafter “the psychiatric unit”). On admission to the psychiatric unit, he was interviewed by Dr M.P., to whom he told that he was depressed, that he was experiencing mental problems and auditory hallucinations. The applicant explained that he was hearing voices telling him to kill himself. He was prescribed therapy with olanzapine. After a few days, when the applicant became adjusted to that medication, Dr M.P. changed his therapy without explaining the reasons therefor. The applicant complained that the new pills worsened his condition, increasing his suicidal thoughts. As he refused to take medication voluntarily, he was strapped to the bed and administered an injection. According to the applicant, he was also strapped to the bed and medicated when the staff of the psychiatric unit suspected that he might attempt to escape during his thirty-minute walk outside. The applicant experienced this treatment as torture and allegedly only thought about killing himself.

On 3 November 2013 the applicant complained to the staff that the medication he was forcibly administered was killing him and that he would commit suicide. Apparently, one of the doctors replied that he could do as he wished. Sometime later, the applicant managed to partially remove the grid from the window of the smoking room using a nail clipper. He opened the window and, according to his own account of the event, jumped from the height of over four metres, trying to kill himself.

According to the report on the applicant ’ s attempted escape from the psychiatric unit prepared on 4 November 2013 by the officials of the Ljubljana prison, on the evening of 3 November at 21:20 a judicial police officer was patrolling one of the departments of the psychiatric unit when she was approached by a nurse coming from another department and telling her that the applicant had escaped through the window of the smoking room. The applicant was lying on the concrete ground under the window, unable to move, and complained about the pain. Two medical officers had already come to his assistance and were shortly thereafter joined by other health professionals from the psychiatric unit who administered first aid to him and called for an ambulance. As the paramedics positioned the applicant on the stretcher and cut through his pyjamas, they found that he was wearing civilian clothes underneath. The applicant, accompanied by a judicial police officer, was taken to the hospital. Furthermore, upon inspection of the smoking room, it was found that the grid on the window was shifted, one of the screws holding it in place having been removed, and a sheet was hanging from the window sill.

The applicant disputed that he attempted to escape, explaining that in the evening, his room had been aired and to prevent being cold, he had put on pyjamas over his sweatshirt and sweatpants. He further denied that there had been any sheet hanging from the window and accused the police officers and the medical staff of the psychiatric unit that they lied in order to avert their responsibility for the incident.

The applicant sustained a number of injuries, a fracture of a lumbar vertebra, fractures of both heel bones (calcanei) and paralysis. His lumbar spine was operated on immediately after the fall and then again on 26 November 2013; moreover, his heel bones were repositioned on 19 November 2013. The applicant then underwent a lengthy rehabilitation process, slowly regaining his mobility. In April 2014, he was again able to walk with crutches.

Meanwhile, on 23 December 2013 the applicant was examined by the expert psychiatrist who held that he was again able to participate in the trial.

B. Relevant domestic law

The Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions Act provides that the safety measure of compulsory psychiatric treatment which is imposed on individuals having committed a criminal offence in a state of insanity or diminished capacity instead of a prison sentence is carried out in the forensic psychiatric units of medical centres. Pursuant to section 151(2) of the Act, these units are to satisfy a number of professional and safety requirements, such as to have appropriate premises and equipment for handling of violent patients; the units ’ construction, outline, equipment and security must be such as to provide adequate areas for sleeping and resting, daily activities, therapy and exercise of detained persons and enable their treatment as well as physical, technical, communication and personal protection in accordance with the requirements of psychiatric, penal and security sciences; moreover, the medical treatment must be carried out by a sufficient number of suitably qualified and trained health professionals, while the judicial police officers are to implement security measures necessary for the protection of persons subject to the safety measures.

According to section 151(5) of the Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions Act, also pre-trial detainees and persons whose capacity to participate in a trial is to be assessed may be placed in a forensic psychiatric unit.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the forensic psychiatry unit where he was placed as a pre-trial detainee lacked adequate security preventing persons such as himself , who were at risk of suicide, from carrying out their intentions. According to the applicant, he had already attempted to commit suicide before being transferred to the forensic psychiatry unit; hence, the unit psychiatrists and police officers were aware of his susceptibility to impulsive behaviour and should have put in place certain measures to protect him from harming himself.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Was Article 3 of the Convention complied with in the present case, in that the domestic authorities took the necessary steps to protect the physical integrity of the applicant while he was placed in pre-trial detention in the forensic psychiatric unit of the Maribor University Medical Centre? In particular, did the competent authorities know or ought to have known that the applicant was at risk of attempting to escape or harm himself, and if not, did they take basic precautions in order to minimise any potential risk to the applicant ’ s health and well-being (see, mutatis mutandis , Keller v. Russia , no. 26824/04 , § 82 , 1 7 October 2013 , and the references cited therein)?