Communicated on 6 February 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 73285/12 Natalia ALEKSEEVA against Latvia lodged on 15 November 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Ms Natalia Alekseeva , is a Russian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Ventspils . She is represented before the Court by Mr E. Endzelis , a lawyer practising in Riga .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. The criminal proceedings against the applicant

3. On 29 December 2011 the applicant was stopped by security guards in a shop in Ventspils after she had attempted to steal some items (tea, coffee, candy and reading glasses) worth 8.65 Latvian lati (LVL) (approximately EUR 12.31). On the same day case material was handed over to the Ventspils police.

4. On 29 December 2011 criminal proceedings for theft were instituted and the applicant was declared a suspect in these proceedings. A security measure ( dro šības līdzeklis ) of obligation to reside in a specific place ( uzturēšanās noteiktā vietā ) was imposed . She was questioned; she signed a form attesting that “waiver of counsel was voluntary”.

5. On an unspecified date in January 2012 the investigator contacted the applicant with a view of finding out the possibility of conducting a forensic psychiatric examination. The applicant replied that she was in a psychiatric hospital in Liepāja undergoing treatment.

6. On 31 January 2012 an outpatient forensic psychiatric examination ( ambulatorā tiesu psihiatriskā ekspertīze ) was ordered.

7. On 27 February 2012 the examination was carried out by two psychiatrists-experts in a psychiatric hospital in Liep āja ( Psihiatriskā klīnika “ Piejūras slimnīca ”, hereinafter – the Psychiatric Hospital). She was found to be suffering from a chronic mental illness – continuous paranoid schizophrenia ( nepārtrauktas norises paranoīdā šizofrēnija ). She was considered to have committed the offence in the state of mental incapacity ( nepieskaitāmība ). The experts advised that compulsory medical measures ( medicīniska rakstura piespiedu līdzekļi) – treatment in a psychiatric hospital ( ārstēšana vispārēja tipa psihiatriskajā slimnīcā ) – be imposed. The experts also considered that owing to her mental state the applicant was not able to participate in the pre-trial investigation or in the investigation during her trial; her participation could deteriorate her mental health condition.

8. On 10 April 2012 the Psychiatric Hospital sent an extract of the applicant ' s medical record, the examination report and the case material to the Ventspils police.

9. On 20 April 2012 the Ventspils police sent the case material to the prosecutor ' s office.

10. On 23 April 2012 a prosecutor instituted proceedings for determining of compulsory medical measures in respect of the applicant. She was no longer considered a suspect and previously imposed security measure was lifted. On 27 April 2012 the case material was sent to the court.

11. On 16 May 2012, following a closed hearing in the applicant ' s absence, the Ventspils Court ( Ventspils tiesa ) examined the case material. The applicant ' s brother, having been appointed as the applicant ' s representative ( likumiskais p ārstāvis ), and a State-appointed counsel were present. The court found her guilty of having committed the criminal offence proscribed under section 180(1) of the Criminal Law, but relieved the applicant of criminal liability and imposed on her a compulsory medical measure – treatment in a psychiatric hospital. The relevant part of the decision reads as follows:

“The mental health condition of [the applicant] and the character of the offence, not taking into account that it is a criminal offence, testified that she is a socially dangerous person, she has also committee criminal offences before, in the basis of which on 20 September 2006 she was assigned to involuntary treatment in a psychiatric hospital, where she was located until 19 November 2009. Her relatives cannot provide care and control for her, because, as [the applicant ' s brother] who lives with her testified, he did not know where his sister was for all of January 2012. Under such circumstances there a real possibility that [the applicant] could commit socially dangerous offences repeatedly and under section 68(1 )( 2) of the Criminal Law compulsory medical measure – treatment in a psychiatric hospital shall be imposed.”

12. This decision took effect on 2 June 2012, no appeal having been lodged against it either by the applicant ' s legal representative or by her counsel.

13. On 6 June 2012 the Ventspils Court issued an order of execution of its decision of 16 May 2012; it was addressed to the Psychiatric Hospital .

2 . The applicant ' s voluntary stay at the Psychiatric Hospital

14. On 29 December 2011, after being released by the police, the applicant voluntarily headed to the Psychiatric Hospital, where she was admitted and stayed until 19 January 2012.

15. She was also treated on a voluntary basis there from 23 to 30 January 2012 and from 10 to 24 February 2012.

3 . The applicant ' s further stay at the Psychiatric Hospital

16. According to the applicant, on 27 February 2012 she voluntarily went to the Psychiatric Hospital for the purposes of the outpatient forensic psychiatric examination. Afterwards, however, she was not discharged from the hospital. She was hospitalised and treated in the Unit 4 of the Psychiatric Hospital, despite her request to be discharged. The applicant repeatedly and regularly requested that she be allowed to return home, but doctors explained that the criminal proceedings had been instituted and she could not be released.

17. She submits that on 19 April 2012 she was prevented to meet with members of the Ombudsman ' s Office ( Tiesībsarga birojs ).

18. On 23 October 2012 the applicant was discharged from the Psychiatric Hospital.

4 . The requests to lift the compulsory medical measure

19. On 24 May 2012 the applicant contacted the non-governmental organisation “Zelda”, which provided her assistance.

20. On 6 July 2012 the applicant addressed a letter to the Ombudsman ' s Office asking that her compulsory medical measure be lifted. This application was forwarded to the Ventspils Court. An inquiry was also opened by the Ombudsman, but there is no information as regards its outcome.

21. On 12 July 2012 the Ventspils Court informed that pursuant to domestic law a request to lift compulsory medical measures could be lodged only after three months following the date on which the measure was imposed, that is, from 2 June 2012, the date on which the decision took effect. Accordingly, the release could not be requested before 2 September 2012.

22. On 6 September 2012 the applicant, with an assistance of the lawyer who continues to represent her before the Court, requested that the compulsory medical measure imposed on her be lifted; on the next day it was received at the court. A request was also made that she be invited to the court hearing.

23. On 21 September 2012 the applicant complained to the President of the Ventspils Court about the non-compliance with the time-limit of 14 days for examining her complaint as prescribed in domestic law.

24. On 25 September 2012 the President of the Ventspils Court pointed out that the court had been unable to comply with the time-limit, but it had been beyond their control as they had not received a medical report from the hospital which was a necessary condition to examine the request. According to information at their disposal, the medical report would be prepared by 1 October 2012. If that were the case, the hearing would be scheduled for 5 October 2012. In any event, the applicant ' s representative would be informed of it.

25. On 1 October 2012 a commission of experts prepared a report on the applicant ' s state of health. They concluded that the applicant has not fully lost the social dangerousness, because she ha d not yet reached the state of stable medical remission ; they were of the opinion that it was not possible to lift or to modify compulsory medical measure and that she had to continue treatment in psychiatric hospital. They also considered that the applicant ' s participation in the hearing would not be useful as it could deteriorate her mental health condition.

26. On 9 October 2012, following a closed hearing in the applicant ' s absence, the Ventspils Court examined the case material. The applicant ' s brother acting as her representative and lawyer were present . The applicant ' s lawyer maintained his request to invite the applicant to participate in the hearing. The court refused this request. During the hearing evidence was heard from those present, including one of the experts from the Psychiatric Hospital. At the conclusion of the hearing, the prosecutor expressed her view that the applicant ' s compulsory medical measure should be altered and, instead, outpatient medical treatment be imposed.

27. On 11 October 2012 the Ventspils Court delivered its ruling and decided that another compulsory medical measure should be imposed – outpatient medical treatment. The court took into account that the applicant ' s criminal offence was not related to a violent act and that it had not been established that the applicant was dangerous to herself or to those around her due to her health condition. The compulsory measure could not be lifted since her illness was in incomplete remission.

28. On 22 October 2012 the decision took effect.

B. Relevant domestic law

29. The relevant parts of the Criminal Law pertaining to compulsory medical measures have been summarised in Raudevs v. Latvia (no. 24086/03, § 50, 17 December 2013 ).

30. The relevant parts of the Criminal Procedure Law pertaining to compulsory medical measures have been summarised in O.G. v. Latvia (the Statement of facts) , no. 66095/09 (communicated on 17 October 2011).

COMPLAINTS

31. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that she was unlawfully deprived of her liberty during the period between 28 February and 23 October 2012. She does not deny that she voluntarily went to the Psychiatric Hospital on 27 February 2012, but argues that once the forensic psychiatric examination was over she was not allowed to leave; her oral requests to allow her to go home were refused. The applicant considers that the procedure laid down in domestic law for involuntary treatment in a psychiatric hospital was not followed. As concerns her detention following the court ' s imposition of the compulsory medical measure, she also considers it to be unlawful since it was not established that she was a dangerous person; petty nature of her crime was not taken into consideration.

32. She alleges, in essence, a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in that her request for release was not decided speedily. While the domestic law provides for an examination of such a request within 14 days, in practice her request was examined in one month and five days.

33. The applicant, invoking Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, complains that there was no procedure available to obtain release during the period between 28 February and 2 June 2012.

34. The applicant, invoking Article 6 § 1 and 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, complains that she was denied participation in the court hearings in the criminal proceedings against her. She refers to three hearings of 16 May, 9 and 11 October 2012.

35. Finally, the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she was denied a possibility to appeal against the ruling of 16 May 2012.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.1. Was the applicant deprived of h er liberty with in the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention during the following periods:

(a) from 28 February to 16 May 2012, and

(b) from 16 May to 23 October 2012?

1.2. Was that detention in conformity with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Was it “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”? Was it justified under one or more sub-paragraphs of Article 5 § 1?

2.1. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her de tention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention , in the period between 28 February and 2 June 2012 ?

2.2. Did the length of the judicial proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to obtain her release, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?

3.1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against her , in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) Were the criminal proceedings against the applicant in the present case compatible with the requirements of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention? Was the applicant able to participate in the examination of her case by the Ventspils Court on 16 May 2012 and to present her case under the same conditions as the prosecution ?

(b) Were the applicant ' s rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention respected in the circumstances where she could not lodge an appeal against the ruling of 16 May 2012 while her legal representative and counsel did not do so on her behalf?

3.2. Did the judicial proce edings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to obtain her release , offer special procedural safeguards, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in the circumstances where she was denied participation in the hearings of 9 and 11 October 2012?