CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 15 juin 1989

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention"),   Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the convention relating to the application lodged on 5 August 1983 by a Swedish citizen, L, against Sweden (No. 10801/84);   Whereas on 7 November 1988 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the convention;   Whereas in her application the applicant complained inter alia that she had not enjoyed the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 5, paragraph 4, and Article 6 (art. 5-4, art. 6) of the convention in respect of a decision as to whether she should be permanently discharged, or remain on provisional discharge, from a psychiatric hospital, the applicant also raising issues under Article 5, paragraph 5, and Article 13 (art. 5-5, art. 13) of the convention;   Whereas the Commission declared the application admissible on 20 January 1986 as regards the above-mentioned complaints and in its report adopted on 3 October 1988 expressed unanimously the opinion that there had been no violation of Article 5, paragraph 4, of Article 5, paragraph 5, of Article 6, paragraph 1, or of Article 13 (art. 5-4, art. 5-5, art. 6-1, art. 13) of the convention;   Agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission in accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1), of the convention;   Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the convention,   Decides that in this case there has been no violation of the convention.