Communicated on 12 May 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 12412/13 Nadezhda Ilieva DIMITROVA against Bulgaria lodged on 11 February 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Nadezhda Ilieva Dimitrova , is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1941 and lives in Byala . She is represented before the Court by Mr S. Byalkov , a lawyer practising in Veliko Tarnovo .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

By a decision of 24 July 2012 the Byala District Court placed the applicant for three-month compulsory treatment in the Byala State Psychiatric Hospital , finding that she was suffering from a paranoid psychosis .

On 22 October 2012, two days before the expiry of the period fixed in the decision, the director of the Hospital requested the District Court to order the applicant ’ s release, relying on section 164(1) of the Health Act (see below). A court hearing was held on 1 November 2012. The domestic court, finding that the applicant ’ s treatment had given positive results and that her compulsory treatment was no longer necessary, ordered the release.

The applicant was discharged from the hospital on 2 November 2012.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Compulsory treatment of mentally-ill individuals who pose a risk for themselves or for others is provided for in sections 155-165 of the 2004 Health Act.

By sections 156(1) and 162(2) of the Act, the placement of the respective person in a psychiatric hospital for compulsory treatment is to be ordered by the competent District Court, whose decision has to specify, inter alia , the period of treatment.

Section 164(1) of the Act provides that the treatment is to be discontinued upon the expiration of the period of time indicated in the initial decision, or upon a new court decision to that effect.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that she remained detained for compulsory treatment between 24 October and 2 November 2012, after the expiry of the time-limit fixed in the court decision of 24 July 2012.

She also complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that she has not received compensation for her detention during that period of time.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted the available domestic remedies in respect of the complaint that her detention between 24 October and 2 November 2012 was unlawful? In particular, has she brought a tort action? Could such an action be considered an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Why was the applicant not released from the Byala State Psychiatric Hospital on 24 October 2012 and did domestic law require that her release should be ordered by a court? Did the applicant ’ s deprivation of liberty between 24 October and 2 November 2012 have a basis in domestic law and accordingly, did it breach Article 5 § 1(e) of the Convention?

3 . Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for her detention between 24 October and 2 November 2012 in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?