Published on 10 May 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Applications nos. 21180/15 and 61431/15
Gennadiy Igorovych SPIVAK against Ukraine
and Dmytro Yaroslavovych SHANOVSKYY against Ukraine
lodged on 23 April 2015 and 27 November 2015 respectively
communicated on 22 April 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
Both applications concern compulsory psychiatric treatment of the applicants in psychiatric hospitals ordered by the courts in the framework of the criminal proceedings against the applicants on charges of murder.Application 21180/15
The applicant was confined to the Ukrainian Psychiatric Hospital from 6 December 2012 to 28 October 2014. The court’s decision following which he should have been released became final on 24 October 2014.
Relying on Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the poor conditions of his detention in the hospital (overcrowding, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, malnutrition; involuntary medical treatment with irrelevant medications which had caused him severe suffering; punishment with sedative injections for raising complaints or expressing his disagreement) and that the authorities failed to carry out an effective investigation in this respect.
Under Article 5 of the Convention the applicant complains that he was not entitled to initiate a review of the lawfulness of his continued detention and that the compensation awarded by the domestic courts for the four-day delay in his release from the hospital was too low (about 260 euros at the time).Application no. 61431/15
The applicant’s hospitalisation for compulsory medical treatment was ordered by the Ivano-Frankivsk Court on 6 September 2010. At the time of lodging his application to the Court the applicant was confined to the Ivano‑Frankivsk Regional Psychiatric Hospital. Between 31 October 2012 and 2015 the courts examined several requests by the head of the hospital for the applicant’s release for an out-patient treatment as his psychiatric condition had improved. All the requests were refused mainly for the reason that the applicant had committed a grave offence and remained dangerous to society.
The applicant complains under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention that the court’s decisions by which the hospital’s requests for his release were rejected and his continued inpatient treatment ordered were unfounded and that he was not entitled to initiate a review of the lawfulness of his continued detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
AS REGARDS BOTH APPLICATIONS
Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective procedure by which they could challenge the lawfulness of their continued detention for compulsory medical treatment, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention? If so, did it ensure the existence of adequate safeguards against arbitrary detention and allow the applicants to initiate a judicial review of that detention, including by lodging a request for release, of their own motion (see X. v. Finland, no.34806/04, § 170, 3 July 2012)?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
AS REGARDS THE APPLICATION No. 21180/15
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in the psychiatric hospital in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, regard being had to his allegations of involuntary medical treatment with irrelevant medicines and unlawful punishment with injections?
2. Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in the psychiatric hospital, in particular the personal space available in the cells, the sanitary and hygiene conditions, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment?
3. Having regard to the procedural protection from inhuman or degrading treatment (see paragraph 131 of Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV), was the investigation of the applicant’s complaint by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Having regard to the amount of compensation awarded to the applicant for the delay in his release from the hospital, can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 5 of the Convention? If so, does the amount of compensation paid to the applicant constitute a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, and, if so, was this remedy exhausted?
The Government are requested to provide the Court with a full copy of the applicant’s medical file for the period of his detention at the Ukrainian Psychiatric Hospital and with a copy of the case file in the criminal proceedings instituted at the applicant’s request.
ADDITIONAL QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
AS REGARDS THE APPLICATION No. 61431/15
Was the applicant’s detention after 31 October 2012 (when the court rejected, for the first time, the hospital’s request for the applicant’s release) compatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, § 127, 4 December 2018, and Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, § 192, 31 January 2019)?
The Government are requested to provide the Court with a copy of the relevant documents, including the requests made by the hospital to the court and the court’s decisions delivered upon the requests.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy