CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mai 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 17 June 2024   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 15691/22 and 55257/22 Muamer DEDOVIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina and Nermin Šabanija MUHIĆ against Bosnia and Herzegovina lodged on 13 April 2022 and 16 January 2023 respectively communicated on 30 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Both applicants suffer from schizophrenia. The first applicant, who has legal capacity, was admitted to the Drin social care home (“Drin”) at his request and on the basis of a contract between him and the competent social care centre in 2019. On 6 February 2022 he formally expressed his desire to leave Drin, but has not been allowed to do so. The second applicant was deprived of his legal capacity in 2008. At his request, the competent social care centre placed him in Drin on the basis of an administrative decision on 1 February 2016. It would appear that he is still in Drin. According to medical reports, the state of health of both applicants requires their compulsory confinement. The applicants did not pursue any domestic proceedings in this connection. In accordance with the well-established case-law of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, compulsory confinement of mentally ill persons in social care homes without a decision of the competent civil court is unlawful and therefore contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, for example, Constitutional Court decisions AP 2210/19 of 10 December 2020, AP 2485/15 of 10 November 2016 and AP 2472/11 of 31   January 2013). The applicants complain, in essence, about the lawfulness of their detention in Drin since 6 February 2022 (in respect of the first applicant) and 1 February 2016 (in respect of the second applicant). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? Notably, is the constitutional appeal an effective domestic remedy for the applicants’ complaints (see Hadžimejlić and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina , nos. 3427/13 and   2   others, §§ 37-46, 3 November 2015, and, for a further application in the given factual context, Salihić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [Committee], no.   6056/14 , §§ 28-29, 6 February 2018)? In this connection, the Government are requested to submit all Constitutional Court decisions concerning compulsory confinement in social care homes and to indicate whether and when they have been executed.   2.     Has the applicants’ detention in the Drin social care home since 6   February 2022 (in respect of the first applicant) and 1 February 2016 (in respect of the second applicant) been in accordance with “a procedure prescribed by law” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Hadžimejlić and Others , cited above, §§ 51-59)?