FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF TSYOGE FON MANTEYFEL v. UKRAINE
(Application no. 29804/16)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 January 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Tsyoge Fon Manteyfel v. Ukraine,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lado Chanturia, President,
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 29804/16) against Ukraine lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 19 May 2016 by a Russian national, Ms Karina Volodymyrivna Tsyoge fon Manteyfel, who was born in 1978 and lives in Elektrostal (“the applicant”), and who was represented by Ms V. Lebid and Mr M. Tarakhkalo, lawyers practising in Kyiv;
the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 of the Convention to the Ukrainian Government (“the Government”), represented by their acting Agent, Ms O. Davydchuk, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the decision of the Russian Government not to intervene in the proceedings;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 7 December 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application, lodged under Articles 5, 34 and 38 of the Convention, concerns the compulsory psychiatric treatment of the applicant, who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, following a court order in criminal proceedings against her on a charge of murder.
2. The applicant was detained in various psychiatric hospitals under different supervision regimes from 23 August 2010 to 14 November 2017. During this period the courts periodically reviewed her detention, on the basis of the hospitals’ submissions, and extended the duration of her compulsory inpatient treatment. The latest order for the applicant’s continued compulsory inpatient treatment was issued by the Samarskyy District Court of Dnipropetrovsk on 19 August 2016 and, according to the applicant, expired on 19 February 2017, since the Psychiatric Assistance Act provided that reviews of such orders should be carried out at least every six months. Requests by the Dnipro Psychiatric Hospital (“the hospital”), lodged on 13 January and 19 May 2017, for the applicant to continue her compulsory inpatient treatment were eventually dismissed by the court on 13 May and 2 November 2017 respectively; it ordered that the applicant be treated as an outpatient. The applicant was discharged from hospital on 14 November 2017.
3. The courts did not examine the applicant’s subsequent appeals against the courts’ orders or her requests for release as, under the relevant law, she did not have locus standi to lodge an appeal or initiate a review of the lawfulness of her continued detention. Requests for immediate release lodged by the applicant’s mother and her lawyer after 19 February 2017 were dismissed by the hospital on the grounds that there had been no court decision ordering her release.
4. By a final judgment of 19 June 2019, the Supreme Court partly allowed a civil claim brought by the applicant against the hospital in August 2017 and declared that her continued detention after 19 February 2017, after the expiry of the six-month period from the delivery of the court decision of 19 August 2016 and in the absence of any further decision extending her detention, had no basis in law. It noted, in particular, that the indication in the Psychiatric Assistance Act that the extension of the application of a compulsory medical measure was to be carried out each time for a period not exceeding six months was a guarantee against unlawful detention. The Supreme Court ordered the Dnipropetrovsk Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) to rule on the amount of the compensation to be awarded to the applicant.
5. In January 2021 the Court of Appeal awarded the applicant 30,000 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) for non-pecuniary damage sustained. That judgment was not appealed against by the parties and became final. To date, the award remains unpaid to the applicant.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENTALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained that her confinement after 19 February 2017 had been unlawful and that throughout her psychiatric detention, she had not had the right under domestic law to challenge its lawfulness, request her release or receive compensation. She relied on Article 5 §§ 1, 4 and 5 and Article 46 of the Convention, stating that the issue disclosed structural and systemic deficiencies in the domestic legal system. The Court considers that the present complaints are to be examined solely under Article 5 of the Convention.Detention after 19 February 2017
7. The Government claimed that the applicant was not a victim of the alleged violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention since the domestic authorities had expressly acknowledged that her detention within the relevant period had not been in accordance with domestic law and had afforded her redress.
8. The applicant alleged that the compensation proceedings had been ineffective, as the domestic courts had awarded her a very low amount of compensation which, in any event, had not been paid to her.
9. The Court notes that the national courts found the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation after 19 February 2017 to have been unlawful and awarded her UAH 30,000, which at the material time corresponded to 1,000 euros (EUR), in compensation. While the sum awarded is lower than the awards the Court generally makes in comparable cases (see in respect of Ukraine, M. v. Ukraine, no. 2452/04, 19 April 2012), where the Court awarded EUR 12,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage for a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of three periods of hospitalisation lasting around two to three months each), the Court observes that the applicant did not challenge the amount of the award by means of an appeal on points of law and did not provide the Court with any explanation regarding her failure to do so. She cannot therefore complain to the Court in respect of this matter.
10. However, in the absence of evidence that the award has been paid to the applicant, the Court considers that the applicant can still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in respect of her confinement after 19 February 2017 and accepts the national courts’ findings that her detention in hospital during that period was unlawful (see, mutatis mutandis, I.N. v. Ukraine, no. 28472/08, §§ 85-88, 23 June 2016).
11. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in the applicant’s case.Review of the lawfulness of the detention
12. As this complaint is covered by the well‑established case-law of the Court, it is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. Accordingly, it must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that the complaint discloses a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention in the light of its findings in Gorshkov v. Ukraine (no. 67531/01, §§ 44-46, 8 November 2005).Right to compensation
13. Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no. 47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014).OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
14. In her observations in response to those of the Government, the applicant additionally complained, relying on Articles 34 and 38 of the Convention, that the Government had not provided documents concerning the criminal proceedings she had initiated in 2017 against hospital officials.
15. In the light of the principles established in its case-law (see, as a recent authority, Makuchyan and Minasyan v. Azerbaijan and Hungary, no. 17247/13, § 224, 26 May 2020) and considering all the material in its possession, the Court finds that that there has been no failure by the Government to comply with Articles 34 or 38 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16. The applicant claimed 30,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 17,250 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
17. The Government contested those claims.
18. The Court awards the applicant EUR 2,600 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
19. Having regard to the documents in its possession, the Court considers it reasonable to award EUR 1,000 for costs and expenses in the proceedings before it, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, to be paid directly into the bank account of her representative, Mr M. Tarakhkalo.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Declares the complaints under Articles 5 §§ 1 and 4 admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention;Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the complaint under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention;Holds that there has been no failure to comply with Articles 34 and 38 of the Convention by the respondent Government;Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 2,600 (two thousand six hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,000 (one thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses, to be transferred directly to the account of the applicant’s representative, Mr M. Tarakhkalo;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Martina Keller Lado Chanturia
Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy