FIRST SECTION

Application no. 75450/12 M.S . against Croatia lodged on 9 November 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, M. S., is a Croatian national, who was born in 1962.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 29 October 2012 the applicant went to see a doctor because of strong pain in her back. Her doctor, after having examined her, called the emergency health service and sent the applicant to do some further medical checks. Subsequently, after being examined in the emergency, the applicant was taken to the R. Clinical Psychiatric Hospital ( Klinički bolnički centar R., Klinika za psihijatriju ; hereinafter the “Hospital”).

According to the applicant, she was restrained to bed with four belts tightened around her ankles and wrists and forcefully given a strong medicament through injection. She was kept in this position throughout the night and she felt a great pain in her back and her left leg was restrained in such a position that the belts caused her additional pain. The room was small and without any windows which all made her feel debased and humiliated. The following morning the applicant was unrestrained and taken to another room in the psychiatric hospital.

On 30 October 2012 the Hospital informed the R. County Court ( Županijski sud u R. ) that the applicant was involuntarily admitted to the Hospital.

On 6 November 2012 the R. County Court ordered the applicant ’ s confinement on the ground that the psychiatric expert had examined the applicant and found that she had manifested symptoms of a serious psychiatric disorder and that her release from the Hospital could endanger her health. The applicant was represented at the hearing by a legal aid lawyer who made no objections to these findings.

On 7 November 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal arguing that there was no reason for her confinement to a psychiatric hospital.

On 8 November 2012 she lodged a further complaint whereby she contended that her legal aid lawyer had never visited her and that she had not been properly informed of her rights.

On 9 November 2012 the applicant ’ s sister, acting on behalf of the applicant, lodged an appeal complaining, inter alia , about the applicant ’ s treatment in the psychiatric hospital and the manner and methods of her physical restraint, and that she had never had an opportunity to consult a lawyer or to be informed of her rights .

On 13 November 2012 a three-judge panel of the R. County Court dismissed the appeals as ill-founded. It endorsed the findings of the first-instance decision arguing that the applicant was not critical to her condition and that therefore there existed a fear that she could put her health at risk. As to the complaints about the alleged ill-treatment, the three-judge panel declined to examine these complaints on the ground that they should be addressed to the State Board for the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders within the Ministry of Health ( Državno povjerenstvo za zaštitu osoba sa duševnim smetnjama pri Ministarstvu zdravlja Republike Hrvatske ) and the Hospital ’ s Ethical Board.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, that she was ill-treated during her admission to the psychiatric hospital.

She further complains, under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, about the alleged unlawfulness of her confinement in the psychiatric hospital.

The applicant also complains, under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, that she was not effectively represented in the procedure of the judicial review of her confinement.

Finally, the applicant invokes Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention, Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, Article 3 of Protocol No. 7, and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, reiterating her above complaints.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. a) Was the applicant required to complain to the State Board for the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders within the Ministry of Health and the Hospital ’ s Ethical Board concerning her allegations of ill-treatment under Article 3 of the Convention? What remedy would she have against the decisions of the State Board for the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders within the Ministry of Health and the Hospital ’ s Ethical Board?

b) Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies in respect of her complaint under Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4 of the Convention , as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the constitutional complaint an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicant ’ s complaint s under Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4 of the Convention ?

2 . Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degr ading treatment , in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?

3 . Wa s the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Ar ticle 5 § of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of her liberty fall within paragraph (e) of this provi sion?

4. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of her detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant effectively represented during the procedure?

The Government are requested to submit two copies of the entire case file concerning the applicant.