5 May 2010
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 11362/07
by Andrey SKRIPIY
against Russia
lodged on 28 February 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Andrey Ananyevich Skripiy, is a Russian national who was born in 1967 and lives in the town of Ufa, Bashkortostan Republic.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant's arrest and placement in hospital
On 11 January 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder of a Mr G. On 12 January 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Ufa authorised the applicant's detention.
On 20 January 2004 the investigator commissioned a psychiatric report in respect of the applicant. On 29 January 2004 the experts diagnosed a personality disorder and recommended a further expert examination requiring a period of observation in a specialised hospital. This examination was carried out between 17 February and 25 March 2004.
In the meantime, on 5 March 2004 the District Court extended the applicant's detention until 11 April 2004. The applicant's counsel appealed contending that the need for a new expert report was cited as the only reason for extending the detention. On an unspecified date, the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic (the “Supreme Court”) rejected the appeal.
On 25 March 2004 the experts declared the applicant of diminished responsibility, which meant that he could not understand the criminal nature of his actions in respect of G. The experts recommended the applicant's placement into a psychiatric hospital for treatment.
Instead, on 8 April 2004 the District Court extended the applicant's detention and ordered his transfer to the hospital where he then stayed until 26 July 2004. On the latter date, the applicant was brought back to the remand centre.
On 30 April 2004 the prosecutor submitted the criminal case to the District Court while seeking that the applicant be subjected to mandatory medical treatment (see the “Relevant domestic law” below).
The trial court twice ordered further expert reports but those orders were quashed on appeal.
On 12 October 2004 the judge ordered that the applicant should have been placed in a hospital, under the order of 8 April 2004 (see above).
On 25 October 2004 the judge issued a new detention order extending the applicant's detention. On 16 November 2004 the Supreme Court quashed that decision and ordered a fresh hearing.
On 19 November 2004 the applicant was placed into hospital in compliance with the order of 12 October 2004.
On 26 November 2004 the judge annulled the detention order in view of the applicant's placement into hospital.
On 9 December 2004 the trial court ordered a new expert report in respect of the applicant who affirmed that he felt better, and ordered his placement into custody. So, the applicant was placed in a remand centre.
Thereafter, the applicant was brought to a Moscow specialised centre for a psychiatric examination.
On 30 December 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 9 December 2004 and ordered that the applicant be transferred to treatment in a psychiatric hospital.
The applicant was thus in hospital between 4 January and 10 June 2005.
In the meantime, the applicant's trial resumed. On 18 February 2005 the deputy President of the Supreme Court decided that the trial should be transferred to the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Ufa because the Leninskiy District Court had a shortage of judges.
So, on 11 March 2005 the trial started anew in the Oktyabrskiy District Court.
2. The applicant's release and re-detention under the order of 3 April 2006
On 25 May 2005 the psychiatrists decided that the applicant was suffering from acute chronic mental disorder but did not require further in-patient treatment. Thus, the hospital administration brought civil proceedings claiming his release from mandatory psychiatric treatment.
On 30 May 2005 the Sovetskiy District Court of Ufa granted their claim. On 10 June 2005 the applicant was released.
On 28 December 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the release order.
On 5 August 2005 the prosecutor required a new psychiatric examination of the applicant. On 2 September 2005 the experts concluded that the applicant could follow an out-patient treatment.
On 24 October 2005 the Oktyabrskiy District Court ordered a further expert report in a Moscow specialised institution. However, this order was not enforced.
In March 2006 the case against the applicant was re-assigned to another judge who ordered on 3 April 2006 a new expert report, as well as the applicant's arrest and his placement into a psychiatric hospital.
On an unspecified date, the applicant was placed in a hospital. However, the order for an expert examination was not enforced because of the renovation works at the Moscow specialised institution.
On 13 July 2006 the judge again ordered an expert report and ordered the applicant's continued detention. Thus, between 20 July and 3 September 2006 the applicant was kept in a remand centre.
3. The applicant's second release and re-detention
On 31 August 2006 the Supreme Court examined the applicant's appeal against the remand order of 13 July 2006 and quashed it. The prosecutor was present at the hearing; the applicant and his counsel were not apprised of the hearing and did not attend it.
On an unspecified date the applicant was released. On another unspecified date, he was placed into a hospital, as indicated “in compliance with the orders of 8 April and 26 November 2004”. The applicant remained in the hospital until 15 February 2007.
In the meantime, in September 2006 the applicant sought his release from the hospital. On 12 September 2006 the acting Director of the hospital informed the applicant that the decision of 31 August 2006 did not indicate that the applicant be “placed” into hospital. Thus, the Director concluded that there was no need to decide on the eventual release of the applicant.
However, the day before that, the Director of the hospital wrote to the President of the Oktyabrskiy District Court urging him to decide on the lawfulness of the applicant's presence in the hospital since he needed no treatment. No reply was received.
On 22 November 2006 the applicant went on a hunger strike.
On 24 November 2006 the Oktyabrskiy District Court asked the Supreme Court to return the case to the Leninskiy District Court since the problem of the shortage of judges had apparently been resolved.
4. The applicant's third release and trial
On 7 February 2007 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of 13 July and 31 August 2006.
On 15 February 2007 the applicant was released from the hospital.
On 21 March 2007 the Presidium of the Supreme Court quashed the decision of 8 April, 26 November and 30 December 2004 concerning the applicant's placement into hospital.
On 19 April 2007 the case against the applicant was transferred to the Leninskiy District Court. Several hearings were held.
On 7 June 2008 the District Court ordered yet another psychiatric report in respect of the applicant.
On 7 October 2008 the experts concluded that the applicant was of sound mind and had not been of unsound mind when the alleged murder had been committed. They also indicated there had been no reasons to maintain the applicant in hospital during the previous periods.
By a judgment of 24 December 2008, the District Court returned the case to the prosecutor for drafting a bill of indictment.
On 26 March 2009 the applicant was charged with murder and unlawful possession of firearms. On the same date, the Kirovskiy District Court of Ufa refused to place the applicant in detention.
The prosecutor appealed. On 16 April 2009 the Supreme Court quashed the above decision and ordered a fresh remand hearing. On 26 May 2009 the District Court again refused to detain the applicant. On 23 June 2009 the Supreme Court quashed that decision and ordered a fresh remand hearing.
On 18 August 2009 the District Court declined jurisdiction in favour of the Supreme Court. On 19 August 2009 the Supreme Court decided that the applicant should not leave the town of residence. At the same hearing the Supreme Court decided that the criminal case against the applicant should be tried by a jury.
The jury acquitted the applicant in November 2009. The applicant was informed of his right to claim compensation on account of the acquittal. In January 2010 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the verdict.
It is unclear whether the applicant brought any proceedings for compensation.
B. Relevant domestic law
Following a preliminary investigation of a criminal case, the investigator may request a court to order involuntary medical treatment of an accused who is unable to stand trial or committed a criminal offence in a state of insanity (Articles 433 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). That person shall be represented in those proceedings by his or her guardian and legal counsel. In the absence of a next of kin a specialised State agency may be appointed by an investigator or a court as guardian. A guardian may file motions, adduce evidence, take part in court hearings and appeal against any prosecutor's or court decisions in respect of his ward (Article 437 of the Code).
Upon the prosecutor' request, the court decides whether an accused kept in detention pending trial and who has been proved to suffer from a mental disorder, should be placed into a mental institution (Article 435 of the Code). The court absolves that person of criminal responsibility and may order his or her involuntary medical treatment, if it has been established that (i) he or she committed a criminal offence in a state of insanity or that (ii) a sentence would be incompatible with his or her state of mental derangement after the commission of that offence (Article 443).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his repeated detention and placement into a hospital were unlawful. He also complains that the length of the appeal proceedings in respect of the detention order of 13 July 2006 was in breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention; that he was not apprised of the appeal hearing on 16 April 2009 and that he was not provided with a copy of the prosecutor's appeal.
In his letter of 13 July 2009 the applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings against him and that the return of the case to the prosecutor in December 2008 violated the impartiality and fairness requirements.
In October 2009 the applicant raised a new complaint alleging, with reference to the expert report of 7 October 2008, that his placement into a psychiatric hospital also violated Article 3 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (a)-(e) of this provision?
2. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil or criminal head applicable to the proceedings, which ended in January 2010? Was the length of these proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Did the proceedings in respect of the detention order of 13 July 2006 comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy