Communicated on 14 February 2014
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 29106/13
Vasile COMAN
against Romania
lodged on 15 April 2013
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vasile Coman, is a Romanian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Vişeu de Sus, Maramureş County.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 18 September 2012 at 6 p.m., the applicant was taken by the police against his will to the psychiatric hospital in Sighetul Marmaţiei for psychiatric evaluation. He was placed in a room with six mentally ill patients. The windows were fitted with iron bars and the door remained locked. There was no supervision in the room.
He went on hunger strike to protest about his confinement.
On the morning of 20 September 2012 he was examined by a psychologist.
On the same day he was held down by four people, tied to his bed, and injected with a substance that caused an anaphylactic shock. He remained tied to his bed for three hours. From the applicant's medical report it appears that the substance injected was Haldol (an antipsychotic drug prescribed for the treatment of acute psychosis or schizophrenia).
On 21 September 2012 the applicant was released from hospital. The medical report indicated that the applicant suffered from delusional disorder. The report explained that he had a disharmoniously structured personality with paranoid tendencies. Outpatient treatment was recommended.
On 4 October 2012 a detailed report was forwarded to the police.
On 22 November 2012 the applicant asked the Vişeu de Sus police to show him the legal basis for ordering his psychiatric confinement and the decision on which it was based. He received no answer to his request.
1. Complaint to the College of Doctors
On 1 October 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the National College of Doctors (Colegiul Medicilor din România) claiming that his confinement had been unlawful, the treatment received had been harmful and the conclusion of the expert report had been incorrect. He argued that the diagnosis had merely reflected the police's instructions and failed to take into account the fact that he had not had any mental issues in the past. He requested that a new examination take place at the Forensic Institute in Bucharest.
The National College of Doctors redirected the complaint to its Maramureş branch, of which the doctors in question were members, and on 23 October 2012, in response to an enquiry from the applicant, informed him that this had been done.
On 24 July 2013 the applicant reiterated his initial complaint in detail. He lodged it with the Maramureş branch of the National College of Doctors and forwarded it for information to the National College of Doctors and to the Ministry of Health. He attached to it a forensic certificate dated 8 February 2013 attesting that the applicant had undergone an expert assessment on the same day which did not reveal any psychiatric troubles.
On 30 July 2013 the National College of Doctors reiterated its previous answer.
2. Criminal complaint against the doctors
On 21 September 2012 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the doctors from the psychiatric hospital in Sighetul Marmaţiei, whom he accused of attempted murder and torture. He referred to the compulsory treatment received on 20 September 2012 and pointed out that the doctors had ignored his allergies and injected him with Haldol without any prior medical investigation, thus causing the anaphylactic shock.
On 15 November 2012 the complaint was dismissed by the prosecutor's office attached to the Sighetul Marmaţiei District Court. The prosecutor noted that the allergic reaction experienced by the applicant was a
side-effect of the medication and that the medical protocol did not prescribe the performance of allergy tests prior to the administration of Haldol. He found that effecting treatment with Haldol did not constitute a criminal offence.
The applicant appealed, reiterating that the doctors had failed to conduct any medical investigations before administering the drug. He further argued that the prosecutor had not identified the four people who had tied him to his bed.
On 27 December 2012 the chief prosecutor from the same prosecutor's office dismissed his complaint.
The applicant appealed, but on 12 February 2013 the Sighetul Marmaţiei District Court dismissed his claims as unfounded and ordered him to pay 50 Romanian lei (RON) in court fees to the State.
B. Relevant domestic law
Involuntary psychiatric internment is regulated by Law no. 487/2002 on mental health and the protection of persons with mental disorders. The relevant provisions are described in Stelian Roşca v. Romania, no. 5543/06, §§ 43-48, 4 June 2013); Parascineti v. Romania (no. 32060/05, §§ 25-29, 13 March 2012); and Cristian Teodorescu v. Romania (no. 22883/05,
§§ 30-39, 19 June 2012).
C. International reports on psychiatric confinement conditions in Romania
The Committee for the Prevention of Torture (following its visit from 28 September to 2 October 2009, report CPT/Inf (2010) 26), Amnesty International (in 2004 – see Cristian Teodorescu, cited above, § 40) and the Centre for Legal Resources (in 2009 – Parascineti, cited above, § 30) have all described unsatisfactory conditions in which in-patients were being held in psychiatric hospitals in Romania and the absence of free and informed consent to the treatment received.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that on 20 September 2012 the hospital personnel administered medical treatment without consulting him, his family or his physician, and that the treatment administered was very harmful to his health.
Relying on Article 5 of the Convention, he complains that he was admitted into the hospital against his will and held in prison-like conditions.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, for the purposes of complaining about the lawfulness of his psychiatric internment and the treatment received in the psychiatric hospital on 20 September 2012?
2. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, in particular, Cristian Teodorescu v. Romania, no. 22883/05, 19 June 2012, and Stelian Roşca v. Romania, no. 5543/06, 4 June 2013)?
The Government are invited to submit information on domestic procedures concerning the powers granted to the police under Law no. 487/2002 to commit a person to a psychiatric hospital, and the conditions under which these powers are exercised in practice, in particular: what situations are considered by the police to warrant confinement; how the decision is taken and executed; and how often these powers are used.
3. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, taking account of the manner in which he was treated in the psychiatric hospital, in particular on 20 September 2012?
4. Has there been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, given the manner in which he was treated in hospital, in particular on 20 September 2012?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy