CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 8 September 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 15940/24 Krisztián András GÁBRIS against Hungary lodged on 7 May 2024 communicated on 19 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s preliminary involuntary treatment in a mental health institution, as a preventive measure pending trial. The applicant has paranoid schizophrenia. On 18   July 2021 he was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of assaulting officials during his apprehension by the Counter Terrorism Centre. His detention, in view of his mental status, was ordered to be executed at the Forensic Psychiatric and Mental Institution (IMEI). On 17 November 2021, following a forensic expert opinion stating that the applicant had been incapable of understanding the significance of his acts at the time of his apprehension, the court discontinued his pre-trial detention and ordered his preliminary involuntary treatment in IMEI. The need for the prolongation of his preliminary involuntary treatment was reviewed by domestic courts at statutory intervals. One of these periodic reviews took place on 29   November   2023. The court prolonged the applicant’s preliminary involuntary treatment, relying on a psychiatric expert opinion dated 29   October 2021 and the fact that IMEI had not informed the court of any change in the applicant’s mental health. The decision was upheld on appeal on 16 January 2024. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts prolonged his preliminary involuntary treatment without his actual mental status being reviewed either by a forensic medical expert or the medical staff at IMEI. He further complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to properly consider alternative measures to his preliminary involuntary detention and treatment in IMEI. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the extension of the applicant’s preliminary involuntary treatment ordered on 29 November 2023 and upheld on appeal on 16 January 2024 comply with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   In particular, was it justified under sub-paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1? Was it established that the grounds for keeping the applicant detained in IMEI on account of his mental health issues continued to exist at the time of the judicial review in question (see Denis and Irvine v. Belgium [GC], nos.   62819/17 and 63921/17, §§ 135 and 137, 1 June 2021; and Kadusic v.   Switzerland , no. 43977/13, §§ 42-44, 9   January 2018)?   And was the detention “lawful” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (e)? In particular, did the domestic courts duly consider less severe measures to the applicant’s preliminary involuntary treatment (see Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §   137, 4 December 2018)?