Published on 27 March 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 32208/22 I.M. against Romania lodged on 23 June 2022 communicated on 10 March 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s allegedly unlawful compulsory detention in a psychiatric hospital and the lack of adequate procedural safeguards under Law no. 487/2002 on mental health and the protection of people with mental disorders.

On 16 January 2022, the applicant was taken by the police from an underground train station and brought by ambulance to the psychiatric hospital Prof. Dr. Alexandru Obregia, in Bucharest. According to the police report, the applicant was “verbally aggressive”, “incoherent” and “agitated”. According to the report written by the ambulance staff, she opposed being taken to hospital, but she was “calm” and “peaceful” (“ calm, liniștit ”).

The applicant did not consent to a voluntarily admission to the psychiatric ward. On 17 January 2022, a special commission of the hospital issued a written decision for the applicant’s compulsory admission to this psychiatric institution, on grounds that she suffered from a psychotic disorder ( tulburare psihotică acută și tranzitorie, nespecificată ), that she represented a danger to herself or to others and hospitalisation was necessary because in the absence of an adequate treatment her mental health could severely deteriorate. The administrative decision was confirmed by a judicial decision of 18 January 2022 of the Bucharest District Court. In the proceedings before that court, the applicant was represented by an officially appointed lawyer but was not heard in person.

The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the Bucharest District Court, complaining inter alia that she had not been heard by the first instance court, that was dismissed as ill-founded by a final decision of 25 February 2022 of the Bucharest County Court. According to that decision, it was not necessary that the applicant be heard because the findings of the medical commission were sufficient to justify her compulsory admission in the psychiatric ward.

The applicant was released from the psychiatric ward on 2 February 2022, based on the decision of the special commission of the hospital stating that that she no longer needed hospitalisation because following medical treatment her condition significantly improved, and she no longer posed an imminent danger to herself or to others.

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention of inhuman and degrading treatment during her involuntary detention in the psychiatric ward, where she had been held for 19 days in a room with 12 other patients, with no possibility to go out for fresh air. She also complains that during her psychiatric detention, she had been subject to periodic compulsory corporal examinations and compulsory medical treatment, and had been prevented from contacting her family.

The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about the unlawful character of her compulsory detention for 19 days in the psychiatric ward. She alleges that the administrative and judicial decisions for her compulsory hospitalisation in a psychiatric ward did not refer to any objective factual elements to demonstrate that she suffered from a serious mental disorder that needed hospitalisation or that she represented a real danger to herself or others. She also complains under Article 5 § 4 of the formalistic and superficial nature of the judicial review and appeal proceedings concerning the compulsory detention decision taken in her respect. She considers that the proceedings before the domestic courts were unfair, especially because she was not heard and did not benefit from an effective legal assistance, her family being made aware of her compulsory hospitalisation only after it was decided.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In particular, did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in the psychiatric ward for 19 days amount to inhuman or degrading treatment?

2. Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, was the applicant’ s detention in the psychiatric ward ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by the law” (see, notably, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 143-47, ECHR 2012, N. v. Romania , no. 59152/08, § 142, 28 November 2017 and Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, § 135, 4 December 2018)?

3. Was the applicant’ s detention in the psychiatric ward duly justified for the purpose of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention (see N. v. Romania , §§ 151 and 163, and Stanev , § 157, both cited above)? In particular, at the moment of her compulsory placement in the psychiatric ward, was her medical condition established by objective medical evidence (see Ilnseher, §§ 127 ‑ 130, and N. v. Romania , § 150, both cited above)?

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 (see N. v. Romania , cited above, §§ 186-187)? Was the applicant effectively represented by a lawyer during the judicial review of her compulsory placement in the psychiatric ward?