CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 décembre 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 48 December 2002 Enhorn v. Sweden (dec.) - 56529/00 Decision 10.12.2002 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-1-e Prevention of spreading of infectious diseases Detention of man infected with HIV: admissible The applicant was diagnosed as being infected with the HIV virus in 1994. He transmitted the virus to a young man with whom he had had sexual contact some years earlier. In accordance with the Infectious Diseases Act, 1998, a county medical officer issued a series of instructions to the applicant on a number of points: sexual behaviour, alcohol consumption, donation of blood, organs or sperm, regular consultation of a physician. In the period September-November 1994, the applicant kept a number of appointments with his doctor, but failed to turn up on five other occasions. In February 1995, the county medical officer petitioned the County Administrative Court to order the compulsory isolation of the applicant in a hospital for up to three months as provided for in the 1998 Act. The applicant stated before the court that he was exercising caution in his sexual behaviour. He intended to pay monthly visits to his physician, but did not wish to visit the county medical officer or, as had been suggested, a psychiatrist. The county medical officer submitted that the applicant was prone to irresponsible sexual behaviour and refused to face the reality of his condition and, for these reasons, should consult a psychiatrist. This consultation took place shortly afterwards. The psychiatrist formed the view that the applicant’s high intake of alcohol and his lack of social contacts could increase the risk of destructive sexual relations. The court granted the order sought. As the applicant failed to report to the hospital, he was finally taken there by the police in March 1995. During the next four years, the further orders were made to extend the applicant’s compulsory isolation by six months at a time. The applicant absconded from the hospital on four occasions, for periods ranging from 10 days to two years on the fourth occasion. Following his return, he was detained in his room for five days. In April 1999, the county medical officer again sought to have the court order extended. The applicant stated to the court that during the period 1997-1999 he had been sexually inactive. He accepted his responsibility for infecting his young partner some years earlier and regretted it. He had moderated his use of alcohol and stated that he would comply with the instructions of the county medical officer. Furthermore, he was in contact with a psychiatrist who was not connected with the hospital. The court also heard from the hospital psychiatrist, who made a very negative assessment of the applicant, considering that he had not progressed at all and still constituted a real risk to society. The court granted the order sought. The applicant absconded again in June 1999 and his whereabouts since then are unknown. Before doing so, he filed an appeal against the court order. His psychiatrist stated that the applicant had a paranoid personality disorder, but was not mentally ill. He suffered from alcohol misuse, but not alcohol dependency. One could only speculate as to the likelihood of him transmitting the disease in future. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court was refused. Admissible under Article 5 § 1 (e).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes