SECOND SECTION

Application no. 71287/12 Mónika VERBIÁS against Hungary lodged on 10 October 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Mónika Verbiás , is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Budapest .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant lives with a psychiatric disorder (apparently schizophrenia) and, prior to the introduction of the application, had been hospitalised on numerous occasions.

On 15 May 2012 the applicant sought help at the Psychiatric Department of Péterfy Sándor Hospital, complaining of insomnia and attacks of anxiety. The Department requested the Pest Central District Court to order the applicant ’ s mandatory institutional treatment.

On the same day the Pest Central District Court held a hearing. For the purposes of the proceedings, a guardian ad litem was appointed for the applicant. During the hearing, the court ordered a forensic psychiatrist to prepare a medical opinion on the applicant ’ s condition. It also heard the applicant in person.

On the same day the District Court approved the applicant ’ s mandatory institutional treatment (decision no. 6.Pk.192.317/2012/2). According to the reasoning, which contained references to the opinions of the psychiatrist of the Department and that of the expert, the applicant represented a ‘ danger ’ , although the decision did not clarify in which manner she did so.

The applicant ’ s guardian ad litem accepted the decision, but the applicant appealed to the Budapest Court of Appeal.

On 24 September 2012 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision, endorsing in essence its reasoning.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant provisions of Act no. CLIV of 1997 on Health Care read as follows:

Section 188

“...

b) Dangerous conduct is constituted by a condition in which a patient, due to his disturbed state of mind, may represent a serious danger to his or others ’ life and limb or health, but, given the nature of the illness, ‘ urgent hospitalisation ’ [within the meaning of section 199] is not warranted.”

Section 197 – Voluntary treatment

“(1) The treatment may be considered voluntary if, prior to admission to the psychiatric institution, the [mentally] competent patient has consented to it in writing.

(2) A partly or fully incompetent patient may be subjected to treatment in a psychiatric institution at the request of the person re ferred to in sections 16(1) and 16(2).”

Section 198

“(1) In cases under sections 197(1) and 197(2), the court shall regularly review the necessity of hospitalisation. Such review shall take place every 30 days in psychiatric hospitals and every 60 days in psychiatric rehabilitation institutions.”

Section 199 – Urgent hospitalisation

“(1) The doctor in charge shall directly make arrangements to commit a patient to an appropriate psychiatric institution, if the patient ’ s conduct is imminently dangerous because of his psychiatric or addictive disease and can only be controlled by urgent treatment in a psychiatric institution. ...

(2) The head of the psychiatric institution shall, within 24 hours of the patient ’ s admission, notify the court thereof and shall thereby initiate steps to establish the necessity of the patient ’ s admission and the order of compulsory psychiatric treatment. ...

(5) The court shall order the compulsory treatment of a patient subjected to urgent hospitalisation if the patient ’ s conduct is dangerous and his treatment in an institution necessary.

(6) Before deciding, the court shall hear the patient and obtain the opinion of an independent expert psychiatrist. ...

(8) The court shall review the necessity of the treatment every 30 days.

(9) The patient must be released from the psychiatric institution if his treatment in an institution is no longer necessary.”

Section 200 – Compulsory treatment

“(1) The court shall order the compulsory institutional treatment of a patient whose conduct is dangerous because of his psychiatric or addictive disease but whose urgent treatment is not warranted. ...

(2) Proceedings for ordering compulsory institutional treatment shall be initiated by the specialist of the psychiatric health care institution which established the necessity of this treatment ... by notifying the court; s/he shall make a proposal as to the psychiatric institution which should administer the treatment.

(3) The court shall decide whether to order compulsory institutional treatment within 15 days following receipt of the notification.

(4) Before giving its decision, the court shall hear the patient and an independent ... forensic expert psychiatrist ... as well as the psychiatrist who has initiated the proceedings. ...

(7) The court shall review the necessity of compulsory institutional treatment at the intervals specified in section 198. ...

(8) A patient subjected to compulsory institutional treatment must be released once his treatment is no longer warranted. ...”

Section 201 – Common procedural rules

“(1) In the proceedings outlined in this chapter, the court shall proceed by way of non-contentious proceedings. Unless required otherwise by this Act or the non-contentious nature of the proceedings, the court shall apply the provisions of Act no. III of 1952 on Civil Procedure as appropriate. ...

(4) In the court proceedings, appropriate representation must be secured for the patient. ... .”

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention that her involuntary hospitalisation at a psychiatric department was not justified, because she was not reliably shown to exhibit dangerous behaviour and thus her detention was not lawful.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Sýkora v. the Czech Republic , no. 23419/07 , 22 November 2012; Plesó v. Hungary , no. 41242/08 , 2 October 2012) ? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraph (e) of this provision, in view of the nature of the requirement of her being dangerous for the purposes of section 200(1) of the Health Care Act?