Communicated on 9 May 2017
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 20006/17
M.V.
against Russia
lodged on 22 February 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant is a Russian national, who was born in 1996 and lives in Moscow. He is represented before the Court by Mr K.G. Kozhevin, a lawyer practising in Moscow.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. In January 2015 the applicant posted certain materials on one of the social networks. On 16 February 2015 a criminal investigation against the applicant was initiated by the prosecution authorities, which considered the published materials to be of extremist nature.
4. In the course of investigation the applicant’s in-patient psychiatrist assessment was ordered. On 17 June 2015 a panel of medical experts concluded that the applicant suffers from schizophrenia, which had deprived him of the ability to understand his actions and to control them at the time when the materials were posted on the social network. The psychiatrists recommended his involuntary in-patient treatment.
5. In November 2015 the applicant voluntarily started following an out-patient treatment in a local psychiatric facility.
6. In June-July 2016 he obtained an opinion of an independent panel of psychiatrists, who concluded that in view of the stable remission the involuntary treatment in no longer necessary. The report was introduced in court as evidence.
7. On 17 August 2016 the Butyrskiy District Court of Moscow, relying on the report of 17 June 2015, relieved the applicant of criminal responsibility and ordered his involuntary in-patient treatment. The judgment was upheld on appeal by the Moscow City Court on 1 November 2016.
COMPLAINTS
8. The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4 of the Convention that he was unlawfully placed in a psychiatric facility despite the absence of sufficient reasons for detention. He further complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention that he did not have a fair hearing in his case.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil or criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? The parties are invited to submit their observations in this respect having regard to the Court’s conclusions in Antoine v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 62960/00, 13 May 2003), and Vasenin v. Russia (no. 48023/06, § 130, 21 June 2016).
2. Did the applicant have a fair hearing, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?
4. Was the applicant’s detention free from arbitrariness, secured by proper procedure and ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”? In particular, did the domestic courts give due regard to the divergence of evidence concerning the state of the applicant’s mental health?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy