Communicated on 16 April 2015
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 4228/08
O.G. (III)
against Latvia
lodged on 12 December 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr O.G., is a Latvian national, who was born in 1965 and lives in Riga. The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4).
A. The circumstances of the case
2. Certain factual information relevant to the present application, in particular with regard to two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant, is summarised in the case of O.G. v. Latvia (no. 66095/09, §§ 6‑41, 23 September 2014). Most notably, on 18 February 2008 in the first set of criminal proceedings (case no. 11810004704) the applicant was relieved of criminal liability and imposed a compulsory measure of a medical nature – outpatient treatment in a medical institution (ibid, §§ 6-15).
3. The submissions in the present case additionally indicate that the applicant was informed of the decision of 18 February 2008 on 3 March 2008. On 12 March 2008 he lodged an appeal against it. On 15 March 2008 he received a decision of 13 March 2008, taken by the judge of the Riga Regional Court, refusing to accept the applicant’s complaint on the grounds that he did not have the locus standi for lodging an appeal. On 8 March 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint against the decision of 13 March 2008. On 22 March 2009 he received a letter from the judge of the Riga Regional Court, dated 19 March 2009 and stating that his complaint would not be accepted. The judge referred back to the decisions of 18 February 2008 and 13 March 2008 in that regard.
4. On 9 September 2008 the applicant requested the Riga Regional Court to revoke the compulsory measures of a medical nature imposed on him “in full.” The text of the letter referred to the decision of 18 February 2008 and to the criminal case no. 11810004704. Nonetheless, on 16 September 2008 his complaint letter was returned to the applicant noting that the decision of 20 August 2008 had become final on 2 September 2008. It appears that the decision of 20 August 2008 was taken in the second set of criminal proceedings (case no. 15830203107).
5. The applicant submits that on 2 September 2008 and on 18 February 2009 an official of the State Agency for Mental Health set out the applicant’s obligations under the compulsory measure of a medical nature. Accordingly, he was ordered to visit a doctor at a psychiatric hospital at least once a month or whenever he would be summoned; to use the prescribed medicine; and to undergo a compulsory evaluation of his mental health by a panel of medical specialists every six months. The applicant was also informed that force would be used against him in case he would fail to comply.
6. On 25 May 2011 the Riga City Vidzeme District Court decided not to change the compulsory measure. There is not information as to when this decision was served on the applicant. The applicant’s request of 22 April 2013 to issue him a copy of the decision of 25 May 2011 was not given a response.
7. On 8 April 2013 the Riga City Vidzeme District Court decided to continue imposing the compulsory measure of a medical nature – outpatient treatment in a medical institution. The decision was based on a report of 25 February 2013 issued by a panel of medical specialists and stating that the applicant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia; that his condition had not improved; and that he did not assess his condition critically. The decision also referred to the decision of 20 August 2008 ordering the applicant’s inpatient treatment in a medical institution, the decision of 28 December 2009 to proceed with the inpatient treatment, and the decision of 27 May 2010 changing the compulsory measure of a medical nature to outpatient treatment in a medical institution. Even though it was stated that these decision had been taken in the case no. 11810004704, it appears that they were, in fact, taken in the second set of criminal proceedings (case no. 15830203107).
8. According to the applicant’s submissions, he has never received the report of 25 February 2013. Furthermore, the applicant was not summoned to the court hearing and was represented before the Riga City Vidzeme District Court by a State-appointed counsel whom he had never met. The applicant received the decision of 8 April 2013 on 8 July 2013. The copy served on the applicant stated that the decision had entered into force on 19 April 2013. Nonetheless, on 8 July 2013 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 8 April 2013; however, it does not appear that he received a response in that regard.
9. On 21 April 2013 the applicant lodged a “proposal on termination of the criminal proceedings no. 11810004704” with the Riga City Vidzeme District Court. On 2 July 2013 a judge of the Riga City Vidzeme District Court informed the applicant that a motion for revocation or alteration of a compulsory measure could only be examined if three months had passed from the previous examination. Accordingly, the examination of the applicant’s request to revoke the compulsory measure was set to 13 August 2013.
B. Relevant domestic law
10. The relevant parts of the Criminal Procedure Law pertaining to the compulsory measures of a medical nature are summarised in the case of O.G. v. Latvia, (cited above, §§ 42-48). In particular, section 607 of the Criminal Procedure Law regulates the manner in which matters regarding the revocation or alteration of compulsory measures of a medical nature come before the courts. At the relevant time it provided:
“(1) If the need to apply the compulsory measure of a medical nature ordered by a court has ceased to exist because the person to whom such a measure was applied has been cured or because [his or her] state of health has otherwise changed, the director of the medical institution where the person is being treated shall, on the basis of a report of a medical panel, request a court to revoke or alter the compulsory measure of a medical nature.
(2) A request to revoke or alter the compulsory measure of a medical nature may be lodged by the person to whom such a measure was applied, as well as his or her lawful representative, spouse, or other close person. In such cases the court shall request from the relevant medical institution a report about the state of health of the person with regard to whom the request has been lodged.
...
(4) The first-instance court responsible for the enforcement of the decision [to order a compulsory measure of a medical nature] shall decide, on its own initiative, on its revocation or alteration, if more than one year has elapsed since the compulsory measure of a medical nature was ordered or since the question of its revocation or alteration was most recently examined and within that time no request or suggestion to alter or revoke the compulsory measure of a medical nature has been lodged.”
11. Section 608 of the Criminal Procedure Law sets down the procedure for examining matters regarding the revocation or alteration of a compulsory measure of a medical nature. At the relevant time it provided:
“(1) Matters concerning the revocation or alteration of a compulsory measure of a medical nature shall be decided within fourteen days by the first-instance court responsible for the enforcement of the decision [to order a compulsory measure of a medical nature] or by the first-instance court with territorial jurisdiction over the medical institution carrying out the compulsory treatment.
(2) The hearing shall be attended by a public prosecutor, the counsel, and the person’s lawful representative. A representative of the relevant medical institution, the person who proposed examination of the matter, and, if necessary, also the person on whom the compulsory measure of a medical nature has been imposed shall be summoned to the court’s hearing.
(3) If the court has doubts regarding the findings of the panel of medical specialists, it may order a forensic psychiatric evaluation, request additional medical or other documents, and undertake other actions.
(4) Following examination of circumstances, the court shall hear the conclusion of the public prosecutor and the views of the counsel.
(5) The court shall take a decision concerning the revocation or alteration of the compulsory measure of a medical nature, or a refusal to do so. The decision shall be amenable to appeal in cassation proceedings only.
(6) A repeated examination of the matter in court shall not be allowed earlier than three months from the day when the court rejected a request regarding the revocation or alteration of a compulsory measure of a medical nature.”
12. Section 69(4) of the Criminal Law at the relevant time stated that on the basis of the opinion of a medical institution the court shall revoke or alter the compulsory measures of a medical nature, if the person concerned has recovered or the nature of the illness has changed to such a degree that it was no longer necessary to impose such a measure.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that the continued imposition of the compulsory measure of a medical nature, in light of its duration and character, constitutes a disproportionate interference in his private life.
2. Additionally, under the procedural head of Article 8 of the Convention the applicant complains that:
(a) he has received no legal aid since the imposition of the compulsory measures in 2008 and that the State-appointed counsel has not met him;
(b) the hearings on the necessity to proceed with the compulsory measure of a medical nature have been held in his absence;
(c) he has been deprived of his right to lodge an appeal against the decisions to continue imposing the compulsory measure of a medical nature;
(d) the documents concerning the measure of a compulsory nature, such as the medical report of 25 February 2013 on which the decision of 8 April 2013 was based and the copy of the decision of 25 May 2011, have not been provided to the applicant.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies as regards his complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, was the Constitutional Court an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision (see Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, §§ 83-84, 17 December 2013, contrast with Latvijas jauno zemnieku apvienība v. Latvia (dec.), no. 14610/05, §§ 44-54, 17 December 2013) in respect of any of the applicant’s complaints raised under Article 8? The Government are asked to submit relevant examples of case-law.
2. The Government are asked to indicate all the relevant dates and provide copies of all the decisions taken with regard to the review of the compulsory measure of a medical nature, imposed in the case no. 11810004704, as well as provide detailed information about the applicable procedure and the procedure followed?
3. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, contrary to the substantive and procedural requirements of Article 8 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy