FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no 80365/13
K.Š.
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 November 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Ledi Bianku, President,
Aleš Pejchal,
Armen Harutyunyan, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 March 2014,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the comments submitted under Article 36 § 2 of the Convention by the Mental Disability Advocacy Center,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, K.Š., is a Czech national, who was born in 1943 and lives in Prague. The President granted the applicant’s request for her identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vít A. Schorm, of the Ministry of Justice.
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background and criminal proceedings
3. In the 1950s the applicant’s father was a political prisoner in the former Czechoslovakia and the applicant considers herself to have been a victim of persecution by its regime and secret police (Státní bezpečnost - “StB”).
4. Since 2000 the applicant was involved in a private-law dispute comprising several sets of proceedings concerning her rights as of a tenant to a flat in which she resided. She eventually lost and was evicted as a result. Her adversary in those proceedings was represented by A., a practicing lawyer.
5. As would be later established by courts, in 2009 the applicant made five written submissions to the Police, in which she suggested that A. had been an informer and a collaborator of the StB, and uttered similar assertions on her publically accessible blog.
6. In connection with these allegations, the applicant was subsequently tried on the charge of slander.
7. In the context of her prosecution, an outpatient examination of her mental health was ordered. As she resisted, an inpatient observation was ordered and forcibly took place, during which the applicant was restrained and medicated (see below).
8. On 17 March 2011 the Prague II District Court found the applicant guilty as charged. However, it refrained from imposing a penalty and - instead - ordered that she be subjected to inpatient psychiatric treatment by way of a protective measure.
9. The applicant’s subsequent appeal, appeal on points of law, application for retrial and constitutional complaint were unsuccessful.
3. Hospitalisation
10. In the context of her prosecution, the applicant was hospitalised in the Bohnice Psychiatric Institution: between 25 May and 25 June 2010, between 26 August 2011 and 31 January 2012, and between 1 March and 9 May 2012.
The first of these periods consisted of the applicant’s observation, the remaining two of the protective treatment ordered. It was eventually discontinued by an order of the Prague VIII District Court of 9 May 2012.
11. On 19 November 2012, following the applicant’s complaint, the Ombudsperson of the Czech Republic issued a report, in which he concluded that the institution had erred, inter alia, (i) in administering pharmacotherapy to the applicant despite her refusal during the period of her observation; (ii) in applying restraints and treating her very harshly during her admission for her first and second hospitalisation, and (iii) in administering pharmacotherapy to the applicant despite her refusal at least until 1 April 2012 because such involuntary treatment had been short of any legal basis.
12. In a letter to the applicant of 7 December 2012, with reference to the Ombudsperson’s report, the institution presented its apology for having medicated the applicant against her will (at least until 1 April 2012) and for having restrained her during her observation in 2010.
COMPLAINTS
13. In connection with the above facts, the applicant alleged a violation of her rights protected under Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 5 of the Convention.
THE LAW
14. In a letter of 31 July 2015 the Government transmitted to the Court a copy of a letter from the applicant dated 23 June 2015 and addressed to the Agent of the Government, from the contents of which it could be understood that the applicant no longer wished to pursue the application.
15. In response, the Registrar of the Fifth Section invited the applicant to confirm whether she wished to maintain her application, with reference to the provisions of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, pursuant to which:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application...”
16. The applicant replied by a letter of 24 August 2015, in which she submitted that “she repeatedly request[ed] to have [her case] cancelled”.
17. In addition, the Court observes that, despite specific requests of 30 March, 13 May and 31 July 2015 and an extended time-limit, the applicant has not appointed a lawyer to represent her in the proceedings and neither has she submitted any observations in reply to those of the respondent Government and the intervening third party. Her wish no longer to pursue her application my thus be seen as unequivocal.
18. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In reaching this conclusion, the Court has taken into account inter alia that the applicant has obtained certain redress at the domestic level from the Ombudsperson and the psychiatric institution itself.
19. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list of the Court’s cases.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Done in English and notified in writing on 10 December 2015.
André WampachLedi Bianku
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy