Communicated on 23 October 2014

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 41719/12 Ioan IVAȘCU against Romania lodged on 18 June 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Ioan Ivașcu , is a Romanian national of Roma origin who was born in 1955 and lives in Piatra, Maramureș County.

The circumstances of the case

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

3 . A psychiatric report drawn up on 20 September 2007 by the Sighetu Marmaţiei medical centre established that the applicant was suffering from “developing paranoid schizophrenia”. This diagnosis was later changed, a new psychiatric report – drawn up on 30 December 2008 by the Cluj Napoca Forensic Institute – having established that the applicant was suffering from “persistent delusional disorder”.

1. The applicant ’ s psychiatric confinement

4 . After having lodged a verbal complaint against a radio station, the applicant was apprehended by the Sighetu Marmaţiei police for the first time on 7 March 2003 at 9 p.m. and detained until 8 March 2003 at 7 a.m. He was subsequently placed in compulsory detention in the psychiatric unit of the Sighetu Marmaţiei Hospital. He was released on 25 March 2003.

5 . On 6 October 2003 at 10 a.m. he was apprehended again and placed in compulsory psychiatric detention until 27 November 2003.

6 . On 1 August 2004, he lodged a complaint with the Sighetu Marmaţiei prosecutor ’ s office and on 6 September 2004 he lodged a complaint with Sighetu Marmaţiei local police, both regarding his psychiatric internment. Before receiving any response, he was again apprehended and detained in the psychiatric unit of the Sighetu Marmaţiei Hospital between 15 September and 13 October 2004.

7 . He was also detained in a psychiatric hospital between 1 November and 7 December 2004, 12 August and 2 November 2005, again from 2 November to 21 November 2005 and between 30 July and 14 September 2007.

8 . Moreover, in the period between 13 September 2004 and 27 September 2009 he was detained on several occasions for routine tests and psychiatric examinations lasting one or two days on each occasion.

9 . He was also treated on an outpatient basis, allegedly for 5 years and 44 days.

2 . The domestic proceedings

a) Criminal proceedings against the applicant

10 . The applicant had been under investigation for making threats ( amenințare ) and false accusations ( denunțare calomnioas ă ), pursuant to Articles 193 and 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as he had been threatening third parties and had lodged criminal complaints against them for ill-treatment.

11 . The psychiatric report drawn up on 20 September 2007 by the Sighetu Marmaţiei medical centre established that the applicant did not possess the discernment necessary to assess the content and consequences of his actions. It was recommended that the applicant be admitted to a medical facility.

12 . Criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued as a result of an order issued by the prosecutor on 18 October 2007.

b) Proceedings regarding the applicant ’ s medical internment

13 . On 22 October 2007, the public prosecutor lodged an application seeking the applicant ’ s compulsory admission to a medical facility until recovery. The applicant was represented by a court-appointed lawyer.

14 . A new psychiatric report drawn up on 30 December 2008 by the Cluj Napoca Forensic Institute established that the applicant was suffering from persistent delusional disorder and that he lacked discernment with regard to his actions. It was recommended that the applicant undergo psychiatric treatment, but without compulsory placement in medical care. This psychiatric report was approved by the “Mina Minovici ” Forensic Institute on 9 April 2009.

15 . On 19 October 2009, the prosecutor ’ s office lodged an application for an order for compulsory psychiatric treatment.

16 . In a final decision of 1 September 2010 the Maramureș County Court rejected the public prosecutor ’ s request. It was held that, under Article 111 of the Criminal Code, security measures (such as compulsory admission to a medical facility and an order to undergo psychiatric treatment) were intended to put an end to dangerous situations and to prevent crime. Security measures should be imposed only on persons who had committed offences defined under criminal law. Consequently, an order to undergo psychiatric treatment could not be served on the applicant until it had been established that he had committed an offence and that there was a danger he might commit other offences in the future.

17 . The domestic court noted that other measures could be taken in respect of persons in the applicant ’ s situation pursuant to Law no. 487/2002 on mental health and the protection of individuals with mental disorders.

3 . The domestic proceedings instituted by the applicant seeking compensation

18 . The applicant instituted civil proceedings on 7 December 2010 against the State as represented by t he Ministry of Public Finances.

19 . The applicant, who had no legal guardian or representative during these proceedings, based his action on Articles 504-506 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages for the unlawful deprivation of liberty during the criminal investigation for several periods between 13 September 2004 and 27 September 2009. He alleged that the Sighetu Marmaţiei police and the prosecutor ’ s office attached to the Sighetu Marmaţiei Court had unlawfully deprived him of his liberty.

20 . In the first-instance proceedings, the Maramureş County Court dismissed his action on the merits in a decision of 30 June 2011. It held that the conditions for the application of Article 504 had not been met and that the applicant ’ s admission to the psychiatric facility had been ordered so that he could be diagnosed and receive appropriate medical treatment if necessary.

21 . The applicant ’ s appeal against this decision was dismissed as invalid in a final decision of 30 November 2011 delivered by the Cluj Court of Appeal, as he had failed to submit his reasons for appeal within the legal time frame.

22 . The decision was drafted on 8 December 2011, delivered to the first instance court on 16 January 2012, and communicated to the applicant on 23 March 2012.

COMPLAINTS

23 . The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14. He claims that he was held in compulsory psychiatric detention for a total of 276 days. He claims that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty and that legal provisions on mental health and the protection of individuals with mental disorders lack sufficient clarity and that it was improperly applied in his case solely because he “disturbed” public authorities with his complaints. He alleges that the public authorities have intentionally excluded him from society, describing him as having a strange physical appearance and as being a gypsy artist, lacking in charisma and discernment .

24 . Relying on Article 13, the applicant also claims that he was not allowed to appeal against the prosecutor ’ s orders to have him admitted to the psychiatric hospital.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Having regard to the applicant ’ s right to private life, in particular the applicant ’ s lack of legal representation in the civil proceedings concerning compensation for his allegedly unlawful placement in psychiatric confinement, has Article 8 § 1 of the Convention been complied with in the case (see B. v. Romania (no. 2), no . 1285/03, §§ 85-99, 19 February 2013) ?

2 . Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for seeking redress against earlier deprivations of liberty as to his placement under psychiatric care, under Article 8 § 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the applicant ’ s state of vulnerability and lack of legal representation, could the civil proceedings that he pursued have been considered a n effective remedy for redress?

The Government are invited to provide information and documents concerning the applicant ’ s psychiatric confinement, including all relevant medical documents, and copies of case files nos. 965/100/2011 and 3210/307/2007 (later registered as case file no. 907/307/2010).