Published on 6 October 2025
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 16793/25
Radek MIKULA
against the Czech Republic
lodged on 28 May 2025
communicated on 16 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The present case concerns the forced termination in 2011 of the applicant’s hunger strike in prison by an involuntary blood transfusion.
The applicant, who is a vegan and refused to eat the prison food, started a hunger strike on 26 December 2010. On 4 January 2011 the prison doctor recommended blood transfusion because of the applicant’s low haemoglobin levels. After his refusal, the prison psychiatrist reported that he suffered from a serious personality disorder and showed signs of psychosis, which did not allow him to properly assess the implications of his decision. Relying on that report, the prison hospital doctors proceeded, still on 4 January 2011, to apply the blood transfusion against the applicant’s will. The applicant asserts that during the transfusion, he was restrained by handcuffs on his hands and feet. No court was asked to review the forced treatment, either prior to it, or ex post facto.
In 2014 the applicant lodged a civil compensation action on account of the above facts. The first and second instance courts, as well as the Supreme Court, dismissed his claims. By a decision no. IV. ÚS 2833/24, delivered to the applicant on 28 January 2025, the Constitutional Court found his constitutional appeal relying on the rights to a private life and to a fair trial manifestly ill-founded.
Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the forced medical treatment he was subjected to violated his personal autonomy and integrity and was not accompanied by the requisite safeguards against arbitrariness. He submits that the treatment should have been subject to a stricter scrutiny because his refusal to accept blood transfusion was motivated by his belief – veganism. He further complains under Article 6 that his allegations described above have not been properly examined by the Czech courts.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of 8 of the Convention on account of the involuntary blood transfusion administered to the applicant?
In particular:
- Were there sufficiently compelling reasons to overcome the applicant’s refusal to give informed consent for the blood transfusion (see Pindo Mulla v. Spain [GC], no. 15541/20, § 146-150, 17 September 2024)?
- Was the applicant’s motivation for the hunger strike and the refusal of the blood transfusion properly considered by the authorities prior to proceeding to the involuntary treatment?
- Did the Czech law and practice at the material time include the requisite safeguards against arbitrary interferences with one’s personal integrity and autonomy (see Pindo Mulla v. Spain [GC], cited above, 144-145, and X. v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 220-222, 13 July 2012)?
- Did the Czech courts duly examine the applicant’s allegations of violation of his fundamental rights (S.O. v. Spain, no. 5742/22, § 59, 26 June 2025 [not final])?
The Government are invited to respond to these questions under Article 8 of the Convention taken alone as well as under that provision read in light of Article 9 of the Convention.