FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3098/08
Helga ZOCK
against Germany
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 April 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Boštjan M. Zupančič, President,
Angelika Nußberger,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 January 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Ms Helga Zock, is a German national who was born in 1937, lives in Berlin and worked as a business economist before retirement. She was represented before the Court by Mr G. Noack, a lawyer practising in Berlin.
2. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Hans-Jörg Behrens, Ministerialrat, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.
A. Background to the case
3. From 1975 onwards the applicant has periodically shown signs of a psychiatric condition.
4. On 17 November 1997 the applicant set up a living will, (psychiatrisches Testament) in which she unconditionally refused any future treatment with antipsychotics (Neuroleptika).
5. On 8 May 2000 the applicant was placed under custodianship by Berlin Mitte District Court.
B. Proceedings at issue
6. On 17 October 2001 the custodian applied for a court decision regarding an involuntary commitment of the applicant for medical treatment.
7. On 28 November 2001 the Berlin Mitte District Court ordered an involuntary commitment of the applicant to a closed ward of a psychiatric hospital for the purpose of medical treatment until 7 January 2002.
8. On 7 December 2001 the Berlin Regional Court altered the district court’s decision on appeal. Upholding the involuntary commitment order in substance, the appeal court modified the character of the decision into an interim injunction valid until 21 December 2001 and remitted the case for gathering of further medical evidence. The court found the medical report of 15 November 2001 insufficient as basis for an involuntary commitment order as the psychiatrist of Pankow District Office did not meet the formal professional requirements.
9. On 11 December 2001 the applicant was forcefully hospitalised in St. Joseph hospital and received medication with antipsychotics.
10. On 7 February 2002 the applicant was released from the closed ward of the St. Joseph hospital, but she had to remain in hospital until 15 March 2002.
11. On 10 July 2007 the Federal Constitutional Court, in a panel of three judges, decided not to review the applicant’s constitutional complaint.
12. In her application to this Court the applicant continued to complain about the forced medication with antipsychotic drugs she had received during her involuntarily commitment which showed a complete disrespect of her actual will and her living will of 1997.
13. The application was communicated to the respondent Government on 25 May 2012.
14. On 11 February 2013 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“Friendly settlement with respect to Application no. 3098/08
Zock v. Federal Republic of Germany
The Federal Republic of Germany, represented by the Agent of the Government in the Federal Ministry of Justice, Mohrenstr. 37, 10117 Berlin, and the Applicant Helga Zock hereby conclude the following agreement (friendly settlement) in connection with application no. 3098/08 filed by the Applicant with the European Court of Human Rights:
1. In the proceedings on the above-mentioned Application, the Federal Republic of Germany recognises a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Federal Government recognises that the Applicant was, due to her serious health problems, in a particularly vulnerable situation. The special care required in such cases was not taken in the present case. Regarding the question whether forced treatment of persons under custodianship with medication is generally compatible with Article 8 of the Convention, the Federal Court of Justice held in two rulings dated 20 June 2012 that the present statutory position in Germany cannot be seen as a sufficient basis for carrying out forced treatment of this nature.
2. The Federal Republic of Germany undertakes to effect payment to the Applicant of a total amount of EUR 14,000.00 in settlement of all and any claims related to the above Application. This total amount is composed of EUR 12,000.00 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,000.00 in respect of costs and expenses.
3. All conceivable claims against the Federal Republic of Germany shall be deemed to have been settled with payment of this amount, specifically compensation for the Applicant as well as costs and expenses. The copy of the disbursement order of the Federal Office of Justice to the competent federal cash office shall suffice as proof of payment.
4. The amount shall be payable within three months after the European Court of Human Rights has ruled to strike the case from its list on the basis of the friendly settlement in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 75 para. 4 and Article 43 para. 3 of its Rules of Procedure.
5. The Applicant herewith declares her consent to having the Application struck out of the list.
6. The Applicant waives any further claims against the Federal Republic of Germany or the Land of Berlin with regard to the facts underlying the Application. The Federal Republic of Germany and the Land of Berlin hereby accept such waiver.
7. The Agent of the Federal Republic of Germany shall inform the European Court of Human Rights of the present agreement.“
15. In addition, the Government requested to strike the application out of the list pursuant to Article 39 § 3 of the Convention.
16. On 26 February 2013 the Court received a letter from the applicant’s counsel confirming the friendly settlement agreement as submitted by the Government.
THE LAW
17. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention.
Stephen PhillipsBoštjan M. Zupančič
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy