FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 28472/08 I . N . against Ukraine lodged on 29 May 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr I.N. , is a Ukrainian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in the town of Severodonetsk , Ukraine.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 1996 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Severodonetskyy Town Court for libel. In particular, the applicant complained that he had been dismissed and that it had been noted in his labour record that his dismissal had been caused by him committing a theft.

The applicant stated that following his numerous complaints to a prosecutor ’ s office about refusal to investigate his case, the prosecutor ’ s office had requested his placement in a mental asylum.

On 18 March 2000 the principal of the Severodonetsk Territorial Medical Association ( С е в е родонецьке територіальне медичне об ’ єднання ) received a letter from the Severodonetsk Town Prosecutor ’ s Office. The exact content of the letter is unknown.

Doctors Ma. and K. studied the applicant ’ s letters to various institutions in the prosecutor ’ s office and decided that the applicant should be examined.

On 19 March 2000, Ma., assisted by the ambulance brigade and police officers, visited the applicant. The applicant was examined and placed in the Severodonetsk Territorial Medical Association hospital.

On 20 March 2000 the applicant was examined by a commission of doctors who confirmed the necessity of his urgent hospitalisation. On the next day the applicant was examined by an assistant of the Mental Medicine Department of the Lugansk State Medical University. He was offered hospital treatment. Since the applicant refused he was further examined by three doctors of the Lugansk Regional Psychoneurological Hospital ( Луганська обласна клінічна психоневрологічна лікарня ) who concluded that he should be urgently hospitalised for treatment since his letters to various authorities contained threats.

Between 21 March 2000 and 7 September 2000 the applicant was a patient in the Lugansk Regional Psychoneurological Hospital.

On 7 September 2000 the applicant was transferred to the Svativsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital ( Сватівська обласна психіатрична лікарня ) to terminate his treatment there.

The applicant was discharged from the hospital on 4 December 2000.

On 17 July and 2 August 2001 the applicant requested the medical establishments where he had stayed to allow him to study his medical file and to inform him what the legal basis had been for his placement into these hospitals.

On 26 September 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Severodonetskyy Town Court against the Severodonetsk Territorial Medical Association complaining about the failure to answer his request about his treatment.

On 6 February 2003 the applicant modified his claims. He complained that his placement in the psychoneurological department of the Severodonetsk Territorial Medical Association on 19 March 2000 and his further stay until 21 March 2000 had been unlawful, and that he had been unlawfully transferred to the Lugansk Regional Psychoneurological Hospital and to the Svativsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital where he stayed until 4 December 2000. The applicant also claimed damages.

On 13 August 2007 the court partially allowed the applicant ’ s claims. The court found that the applicant ’ s placement in hospital on 19 and 21 March 2000 had been in compliance with the temporary instructions “On Procedure for the Conduct of Preliminary Psychiatric Examination of Citizens” and “On Procedure for Urgent Hospitalisation of Mentally Ill” which were annexed to the Order No. 225 of 25 March 1988 of the Ministry of Health of the USSR. However, his further placement to the Svativsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital on 7 September 2000 was in breach of the Psychiatric Medical Assistance Act, which was in force as of 5 April 2000. The applicant ’ s claims for access to information were rejected. The court awarded the applicant 2,000 Ukrainian hryvnias in compensation for non-pecuniary damage (around 286 euros at the material time).

On 18 September 2007 the applicant requested the court to issue him a writ of enforcement.

The decision of 13 August 2007 was upheld on 29 November 2007 and on 12 February 2008 by the Lugansk Regional Court of Appeal and by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, respectively.

On 23 November 2010 the applicant complained to the Severodonetskyy Town Court that he had not received the writ of enforcement. In reply the court informed him that he could receive the writ of enforcement in the court ’ s secretariat upon a written request.

It is unclear whether the applicant received the damages awarded to him.

B. Relevant domestic law

Before 4 April 2000 a compulsory medical treatment in mental hospitals was regulated by the Soviet legislation in force at the material time (the Decree of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of 12 September 1991 “On the temporary operation of certain legislative acts of the USSR in the territory of Ukraine”).

In particular, such treatment was regulated by Order No. 225 of 25 March 1988 of the Ministry of Health of the USSR. According to the Instructions attached to this Order and referred to by the national courts, only a psychiatrist could decide whether a person suffered from a mental disorder. The preliminary examination was to be conducted with the consent of the examined person. A person could be examined without his/her consent if he/she committed acts, which served as a sufficient ground to suspect that he/she had a mental disorder and which disturbed public order or were dangerous for the person himself/herself or for others. The decision to perform an examination had to be taken by the chief psychiatrist of a hospital upon a written request from the law-enforcement authorities or from other persons. Patients who were dangerous to themselves or to others could be placed in a mental hospital upon decision of a psychiatrist without their consent. A person could only be placed in hospital in an emergency case upon the decision of a psychiatrist. Doctors could be assisted by the police if a person resisted or wanted to escape.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that his rights under Article 5 § § 1, 4 and 5, and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention were breached. In particular, he complains that it was unlawful to place him in a mental hospital without a court decision. He further complains that the proceedings in his case were too lengthy.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant ’ s deprivation of liberty between 19 March 2000 and 7 September 2000 fall within paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was his deprivation of liberty in conformity with this provision? In particular, was it lawful and did the law applied in the applicant ’ s case contain the necessary safeguards against any arbitrary deprivation of liberty?

2. Can the applicant still claim to be a vic tim of a violation of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention in respect of his placement in a hospital between 7 September 2000 and 4 December 2000, within the meaning of Article 34? If so, was the applicant ’ s deprivation of liberty during this period in conformity with Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention?

3. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?

4. Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case compatible with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?