CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 avril 2013

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 162 April 2013 Goryachev v. Russia (dec.) - 34886/06 Decision 9.4.2013 [Section I] Article 37 Article 37-1-c Continued examination not justified Lack of diligence by the applicant in pursuing his case at domestic level: struck out   Facts – In November 2004 the applicant, who suffered from schizophrenia, was involuntarily hospitalised as a result of anxious and aggressive behaviour. Following his discharge about a month later, he challenged the court order authorising his hospitalisation. That decision was ultimately quashed on supervisory review and the case was remitted. In the resumed proceedings, given the repeated absence of the hospital’s representative, and the lack of any objection by the applicant, the district court left the hospital’s application for involuntary hospitalisation without consideration. Law – Article 37 § 1 (c): The Court had a wide discretion in identifying grounds capable of being relied on in striking out an application where its continued examination was no longer justified. It had previously struck out cases for lack of diligence on the part of an applicant. In the instant case, all the applicant had needed to do was to object to the district court’s decision to leave the case without consideration. He would not have had to provide any further reasons. However, by failing to insist on a consideration of the merits, even though he was represented by counsel, the applicant had effectively consented to the termination of the proceedings without a final judicial decision reviewing the lawfulness of his hospitalisation. He had thus freely chosen not to pursue his complaints through a reasonable avenue on the domestic level and thereby prevented a review of his hospitalisation and the adoption of a final domestic decision in his case. Given his lack of diligence, it was no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Conclusion : struck out (unanimously).   © 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