Published on 26 September 2022

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 2648/22 T.A. against Armenia lodged on 23 December 2021 communicated on 6 September 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns a person who was placed in a psychiatric institution for compulsory treatment based on a court decision.

On 24 December 2015 the applicant filed a crime report to the police informing them about six different counts of crimes, including a murder and a beating that had caused the death of a person, and about the alleged perpetrators. The investigation opened into the alleged crimes concluded that such crimes had never been committed. As a result, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in connection with false crime reporting. On 27 September 2016 a medical expert examination, ordered within the scope of those criminal proceedings, concluded that the applicant suffered from “organic delusional disorder”, was mentally ill and needed compulsory treatment in a psychiatric institution. The investigator applied to a district court seeking to have compulsory medical measures imposed on the applicant. On 9 February 2018 the district court decided that the applicant lacked criminal liability on account of her mental illness and had to be subjected to compulsory treatment in a psychiatric institution. Following unsuccessful appeal proceedings, the applicant was placed in such an institution on 14 July 2021 where she currently remains confined. The applicant alleges that her treatment at the institution involves forced administration of medication, and that her contacts with relatives and telephone calls are restricted.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant’s compulsory confinement compatible with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 126-134, 4 December 2018)?

2. Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies in respect of her complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private and family life and correspondence, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention? In particular:

(a) has she been subjected to forced administration of medication contrary to that provision?

(b) have there been restrictions on her contacts with the outside world, including on her meetings and telephone conversations with her relatives and a confiscation of her mobile telephone, contrary to that provision?