Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 92
December 2006
Filip v. Romania - 41124/02
Judgment 14.12.2006 [Section III]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Alleged ill-treatment during detention in a psychiatric hospital and failure to conduct a thorough and effective investigation in this regard:no violation, violation
Article 5
Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Unjustified committal to a psychiatric hospital in violation of domestic legislation: violation
Article 5-4
Speediness of review
Absence of speedy judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant's committal to a psychiatric hospital: violation
Facts: In October 2000 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against his former wife and his son, accusing them of preventing him from recovering furniture from his former wife’s flat. In the course of the related proceedings the applicant accused the prosecutor and the judge of various offences, and was therefore placed under investigation for contempt of court. At the request of the public prosecutor’s office the applicant was arrested on 8 November 2002 and detained for an indefinite period in a psychiatric hospital so that his state of mind could be assessed. The doctor who examined him reported that he was suffering from “paranoid disorders”. The applicant lodged a number of complaints against his committal and the conditions in which he was being detained. On 12 December 2002 the public prosecutor requested a committee to prepare a forensic medical report on the applicant. On 22 January 2003 the committee submitted its report, recommending that the applicant undergo compulsory psychiatric treatment. The hospital order was lifted on 28 January 2003 and the applicant was released two days later. The Romanian courts subsequently ordered the treatment recommended by the committee to be carried out.
Law: Article 3 – Ill-treatment: With regard to the applicant’s complaints that he had not received appropriate treatment for his cardio-vascular illness and his locomotor disability and that he had been strapped to his bed and released from restraint only once every 24 hours, to go to the toilet, the Court, having regard to the information in its possession, considered that the facts were not sufficiently well established for it to be able to find a violation of Article 3 on account of the alleged ill-treatment and the lack of medical treatment.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Article 3 – Lack of an investigation: The applicant had complained about the conditions in which he was detained. However, the Romanian Government had not supplied any information to show that a criminal investigation had been opened or that the prosecution service had reached any finding on the applicant’s complaints. There had therefore not been a thorough and effective investigation into the applicant’s allegation of ill-treatment in the psychiatric hospital.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5(1) – The applicant had been committed for an indefinite period on the basis of a decision by the public prosecutor’s office which had been taken before an opinion was obtained from a medical expert. Accordingly, the applicant’s detention over an 84-day period could not be regarded as the “lawful detention of [a] person of unsound mind” within the meaning of Article 5(1)(e), as the applicant had not been reliably shown to be of unsound mind. Moreover, the prosecution service had not consulted the relevant medical committee until over a month after the applicant’s committal, after the applicant had lodged a complaint alleging that his detention was unlawful, rather than doing so immediately as required by the domestic legislation. Consequently, the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty had not been “lawful”.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5(4) – The relevant court had not ruled on the applicant’s complaint, but had simply forwarded it to the public prosecutor’s office, which had waited until the hospital order was lifted before ruling on the applicant’s complaint, which it then found to be devoid of purpose. That being the case, there had been no review of the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the committee had submitted its report more than two months after the applicant had been detained, the latter could not be said to have obtained a speedy judicial determination of the lawfulness of his detention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – EUR 8,000 in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
© 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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy