CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 avril 1997

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                           Application No. 32560/96                       by Satu NIIRANEN                       against Finland           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 15 April 1997, the following members being present:                Mrs.   J. LIDDY, President            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS                  L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs.   M. HION            Mr.    R. NICOLINI              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 29 July 1996 by Satu NIIRANEN against Finland and registered on 7 August 1996 under file No. 32560/96;         Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having regard to the submissions of the late applicant's counsel dated 13 March 1997;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant was a Finnish citizen, born in 1948 and a theatre director by profession. Prior to her death in January 1997 she was detained in a hospital for mentally ill in Paihola. She was represented by Mr Pekka Reinikainen, lawyer of The Association for Psychiatric Health Helmi r.y. based in Helsinki.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         On 6 June 1995 an ambulance came to fetch the applicant from her friend's house at Liperi. The ambulance staff demanded that she come with them to the local health care centre for an examination of her mental health. They showed no document in support of this demand. The applicant having refused to comply with it, a police patrol came to fetch her, again without presenting any document in support of the demand. She then agreed to go with them. The applicant had not previously had any contact with the physician at the local health care centre who had ordered her examination.         From the health care centre the applicant was transferred to the Paihola Hospital for observation. On 9 June 1995 the Chief Physician ordered her compulsory care, as the conditions for such care had been met pursuant to section 8 of the 1990 Mental Health Act (mielenterveys- laki, mentalvårdslag 1116/1990). It appears that on the same day the applicant's then counsel was given a copy of the order.         The applicant appealed belatedly to the County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) of Northern Carelia, essentially arguing that the care order had been insufficiently reasoned. She referred, inter alia, to written statements by Drs. M.R. and B.F, who acknowledged that she was suffering from certain mental problems but considered that they could be resolved through voluntary care.          The County Administrative Court heard the Chief Physician in writing and the applicant was able to comment on his opinion. On 22 August 1995 the Court held an oral hearing, where it heard, among others, the Chief Physician.         In its decision of 25 August 1995 the County Administrative Court accepted that the applicant could appeal against the care order, as she had not received the original or a certified copy thereof. It nevertheless rejected the appeal, essentially considering that the care order had been sufficiently reasoned and finding that the applicant was still in need of compulsory care.         Following the applicant's further appeal the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltnings- domstolen) obtained a further written opinion from the Chief Physician, who considered that the care order had been issued in accordance with the Mental Health Care Act and criticised the manner in which counsel had interfered with the applicant's right to proper care. The applicant was not afforded an opportunity to comment on this opinion dated 17 October 1995.         On 30 January 1996 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the County Administrative Court's decision without providing any further reasons. The decision does not mention the hearing of the Chief Physician.   COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complained under Article 5 of the Convention that her detention was unjustified. The physician who ordered that she should undergo observation had never seen her previously. The Chief Physician did not give sufficient reasons for his compulsory care order and failed to notify the applicant thereof in pursuance of domestic law.   2.     The applicant also complained that she was not informed promptly of the reasons for the deprivation of her liberty. In addition, her right to security was violated, given that neither the ambulance staff nor the police officers showed any legal basis for threatening to use force unless she would agree to undergoing observation. She invoked Article 5 paras. 1 and 2 of the Convention.   3.     The applicant furthermore complained that due to the Chief Physician's failure properly to notify her of his compulsory care order she was not entitled to have the lawfulness of the order examined speedily by a court.   4.     The applicant also complained that as a result of the Chief Physician's failure properly to notify her of his compulsory care order the administrative court proceedings could not commence within a reasonable time. In addition, she was not afforded any opportunity to comment on the Chief Physician's opinion to the Supreme Administrative Court. She invoked Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   5.     The applicant further complained that during her detention her right to receive and contact her counsel and others had been restricted. Moreover, four letters sent to her by her counsel had been opened and read by hospital staff. She invoked Article 8 of the Convention.   6.     The applicant finally complained that she had been denied an effective remedy against the restrictions of her visits and contacts and the interference with her correspondence.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION         The application was introduced on 29 July 1996 and registered on 7 August 1996.         On 27 November 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.         On 10 February 1997 the Government informed the Commission that the applicant had died in January 1997. The Government furthermore requested that their time-limit for lodging observations on the admissibility and merits of the application be suspended pending a possible withdrawal of the case. This request was granted on 18 February 1997.         On 13 March 1997 counsel informed the Commission that none of the late applicant's relatives wished to pursue the application which was therefore withdrawn.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION         The Commission notes that the applicant has died in January 1997 and that none of her relatives wish to pursue the application. In these circumstances it can be struck out of the Commission's list of cases within the meaning of Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention. Moreover, the Commission finds no reasons of a general character affecting the respect for Human Rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.     M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                  J. LIDDY      Secretary                                     President to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber