Published on 11 April 2023

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 36566/22 A.S. against Romania lodged on 19 July 2022 communicated on 20 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 3 February 2022, the applicant was taken with an ambulance called by his life partner and presented to the psychiatric hospital Prof. Dr. Alexandru Obregia, in Bucharest. The applicant had been previously diagnosed with depression in 2019 and had been under treatment with medication. The applicant did not oppose being taken to hospital, but he did not consent to a voluntarily admission in the psychiatric ward. On 4 February 2022, a special commission of the hospital issued a written decision for the applicant’s compulsory admission to this psychiatric institution, on grounds that he suffered from a maniacal episode ( episod maniacal nespecificat ) and hospitalisation was necessary because in the absence of an adequate treatment his health could severely deteriorate ( există posibilitatea unei grave deteriorări a stării pacientului ). No specifications were made whether the applicant represented a danger for himself or for others. The administrative decision was confirmed by a judicial decision of 7 February 2022 of the Bucharest District Court. In the proceedings in front of such court, the applicant was not heard, and he benefited from the assistance of an officially assigned lawyer, although the applicant had indicated to the hospital the name of a lawyer of his own choosing. The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the Bucharest District Court that was dismissed as ill-founded by a final decision of 1 March 2022 (served on 15 March 2022) of the Bucharest County Court. According to this decision the applicant could not be heard by the first instance court because he had been detected Covid-positive.

The applicant was released from the psychiatric ward on 2 March 2022 based on the decision of the special commission of the hospital, confirmed by the court, on grounds that following medical treatment his condition had significantly improved and he no longer needed hospitalisation.

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about the unlawful character of his compulsory detention in the psychiatric ward. He alleges that it had not been clearly established that he suffered from a serious mental disorder that needed hospitalisation or that he represented a real danger to himself or others. He also complains in substance under Article 5 § 4 of the formalistic and superficial nature of the judicial review and appeal proceedings concerning the compulsory detention decision taken in his respect. He considers that the proceedings before the domestic courts were unfair, especially because he was not heard and did not benefit of an effective legal assistance. He alleges that these shortcomings impaired his right to defence.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his 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)?

2. 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 his compulsory placement in the psychiatric ward, was his medical condition established by objective medical evidence (see Ilnseher, §§ 127 ‑ 130, and N. v. Romania , § 150, both cited above)?

3. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his 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 his compulsory placement in the psychiatric ward?