CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 3 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 33891/21 Marin Vasylyovych MATEY against Ukraine and 3 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 13 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric internment ordered in the framework of criminal proceedings. The applicant was arrested on 25 June 2016 in connection with a knife attack. Following his initial remand in prison, he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and placed in a   psychiatric   hospital with strict supervision (“the hospital”) as a measure of restraint. On 24 November 2016, following a trial, a court found that the applicant had committed the above knife attack while lacking mental capacity, and ordered his compulsory psychiatric internment. After the re-trial on procedural grounds, on 22 December 2020 a district court confirmed the applicant’s involvement in the above offence and again ordered his compulsory psychiatric internment. This was eventually upheld by the Supreme Court on 3 August 2023. While the criminal proceedings were ongoing, the applicant’s psychiatric internment was repeatedly extended by the courts following hearings where he participated by video link. In their extension orders, the courts relied on medical reports drawn up by the hospital’s doctors in which they acknowledged the lack of progress in the applicant’s mental state and the continued need for his psychiatric internment. According to the applicant, while the Psychiatric Assistance Act provides that the medical assessment should be carried out at least every six months, the extension orders from 10   December 2020 onwards were based on outdated medical reports. Claiming that his continued psychiatric internment was no longer justified, the applicant attempted to commission an independent assessment from various psychiatric clinics, but none of the doctors consented to carry it out. His requests to the domestic courts to seek an alternative expert opinion on his mental state had been systematically rejected too. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention that starting from 10 December 2020 the orders extending his psychiatric internment had been based on the medical opinions which did not reflect his actual mental health. He also asserts that because of professional solidarity in the field of psychiatry and the systematic rejection of his requests by the domestic courts, he had been unable to undergo an independent assessment of his mental state. The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that he could participate at the court hearings to extend his psychiatric internment only by video link while his requests for participation in person had been unlawfully rejected and that the length of the proceedings, in which he sought to challenge the lawfulness of his internment (proceedings nos. 204/7791/19, 204/9242/22, 204/11251/22, 204/9029/23), did not comply with the “speediness” requirement. Lastly, he complains under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention that there were no compensatory remedies in the domestic legislation for his allegedly unlawful psychiatric internment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the domestic courts’ orders on the extension of the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric internment starting from 10   December   2020 comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? Was the applicant reliably shown to be “of unsound mind” and was his deprivation of liberty during this period justified under Article   5   §   1   (e) of the Convention? In particular, were the medical reports, upon which the domestic courts based their extension orders during the relevant period, sufficiently recent (see, for example, D.C. v. Belgium , no. 82087/17, § 86, 30 March 2021; M.B.   v.   Poland , no. 60157/15, §§ 64-66, 14 October 2021; Miklić v. Croatia , no. 41023/19, §§ 74-76, 7 April 2022)?   2.     Considering the applicant’s allegations that he had not been allowed to participate in person at the relevant court hearings, did the proceedings to extend his compulsory psychiatric internment comply with the requirements of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Trepashkin v.   Russia (no. 2) , no. 14248/05, §§ 147-54, 16 December 2010; Stanev v.   Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 168-71, ECHR 2012)?   3.     Regard being had to the applicant’s alleged inability to commission his medical assessment by an independent medical expert and the domestic courts’ refusals to seek an alternative medical opinion, did the applicant have at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his psychiatric internment, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Gorshkov v.   Ukraine , no.   67531/01, §§   44-46, 8 November 2005)?   4.     Did the length of the proceedings, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his psychiatric internment (proceedings nos.   204/7791/19, 204/9242/22, 204/11251/22, 204/9029/23), comply with the “speediness” requirement of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention (see   Ilnseher v. Germany   [GC], nos.   10211/12   and   27505/14, §   256, 4 December 2018, and   Piotr Baranowski v.   Poland , no.   39742/05, §§   64-67, 2   October 2007)?   5.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his allegedly unlawful psychiatric internment, as required by Article   5   §   5 of the Convention (see, for example, I.N. v.   Ukraine , no.   28472/08, § 97, 23 June 2016)?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 33891/21 Matey v. Ukraine 23/06/2021 Marin Vasylyovych MATEY 1980 Dnipro Ukrainian Bogdan Vasylyovych FOKIY 2. 40920/21 Matey v. Ukraine 24/07/2021 The same The same 3. 26088/22 Matey v. Ukraine 30/05/2022 The same The same 4. 36200/23 Matey v. Ukraine 10/09/2023 The same The same