CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 décembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 12 December 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 9293/14 J.J. against Hungary lodged on 23 January 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the deprivation of liberty of the applicant in the form of a court decision ordering her mandatory institutional treatment. The applicant was admitted to a psychiatric hospital on 3 August 2013. At the hospital’s proposal, proceedings were subsequently put in place to evaluate if the legal requirements for ordering her mandatory institutional treatment were met. On the basis of section 199 (5) of Act no. CLIV of 1997 on Health Care, the court ordered the applicant’s mandatory institutional treatment. On appeal, on 18 September 2013 the second-instance court held that the conditions for mandatory institutional treatment were not met in the applicant’s case. In the meantime, on 24 August 2013 the applicant was released from the hospital. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraph (e) of this provision, in view of the nature of the applicant’s psychiatric evaluation and its conclusions, as well as the requirement of her being dangerous for the purposes of section 199 (5) of the Health Care Act   1997 (see Plesó v. Hungary , no. 41242/08, 2 October 2012)?