Information Note on the Court’s case-law 57
October 2003
Rakevich v. Russia - 58973/00
Judgment 28.10.2003 [Section II]
Article 5
Article 5-1-e
Persons of unsound mind
Lawfulness of emergency psychiatric detention: violation
Article 5-4
Take proceedings
Adequacy of automatic right of review of lawfulness of psychiatric detention: violation
Facts: On 26 September 1999 an acquaintance of the applicant called for an ambulance to take her to a psychiatric hospital. A doctor at the hospital considered that the applicant was suffering from a grave mental disorder, with symptoms of fear, anxiety and disorientation, which rendered her a danger to herself. The hospital applied for court approval of her confinement.Two days later a medical commission diagnosed the applicant as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and confirmed that she should be kept in hospital. On 5 November 1999 the District Court, after a hearing at the hospital, confirmed that the detention had been necessary. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed on 24 December 1999.
Law: Article 5 § 1 (e) – For compulsory psychiatric confinement to be “lawful”, three requirements must be fulfilled: firstly, the person must be reliably shown by objective medical expertise to be suffering from a true mental disorder, except in an emergency; secondly, the disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; thirdly, the disorder must persist throughout the period of detention. In the present case, there was no reason to doubt the accuracy of the medical findings of 26 September 1999, so that the applicant’s condition represented an emergency. Moreover, since the authorities’ decision was based on psychiatric evidence of mental illness, the applicant’s detention was not arbitrary. The provisions of domestic law on compulsory confinement, which refer to mental disorder severe enough to give rise to a direct danger to the person or to others, are not too vague and imprecise to comply with the principle of legal certainty, and it is not necessary for the lawmaker to define the term “danger” exhaustively. However, the law also requires that a judge must grant or refuse a detention order within five days of the hospital’s application, whereas in the present case the application of 26 September was not dealt with until 5 November 1999, 39 days later. The applicant’s detention therefore did not comply with the procedure prescribed by law.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 5 § 4 – Although the hospital applied for a court review of the lawfulness of the detention, the law did not permit the applicant herself to make such an application. This is, however, required by Article 5 § 4.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 3,000 euros 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