CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 février 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sB1AFDE2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:14pt } .s2348ECBC { width:232.5pt; display:inline-block } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sEFD033A4 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .s99B90CD9 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:46.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-size:10pt } .sDA01CD06 { width:13pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s308A9C58 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:46.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .s237230BA { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-21.3pt; font-size:10pt } .sFDE1A3A0 { width:16.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sDE1FCA9C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s4FE571FB { width:260.16pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5243C837 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s507451D6 { width:4.53pt; display:inline-block } .s87E7BBAE { width:202.76pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }       FIRST SECTION               CASE OF M.S. v. CROATIA (No. 2)   (Application no. 75450/12)               JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   19 February 2015     FINAL   19/05/2015   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of M.S. v. Croatia (No. 2), The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Isabelle Berro, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Julia Laffranque,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Erik Møse,   Ksenija Turković, judges, and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 27 January 2015, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 75450/12) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Ms M.S. (“the applicant”), on 9   November 2012. The President of the Section acceded to the applicant’s request not to have her name disclosed (Rule 47 § 4 of the Rules of Court). 2.     The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3.     The applicant complained, in particular, that she had been unlawfully confined in a psychiatric hospital, and that she had been ill-treated there, in violation of Article 3 and Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4 of the Convention. 4.     On 6 May 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. In addition, third-party comments were received jointly from the Centre for Disability Law and Policy at the National University of Ireland Galway (hereinafter: “the CDLP”) and the Association for Social Affirmation of People with Psychosocial Disabilities in Croatia (hereinafter: “SHINE”) (Article 36 § 2 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 3 of the Rules of Court). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in L. A.     Background to the case 6.     For several years the applicant had been under the supervision of, and had been receiving various types of financial assistance amounting to some 600 Croatian kunas (HRK) per month from, a local social care centre. 7.     In June 2008, the applicant’s family doctor submitted to the social care centre a report on her medical treatment, stating as follows: “With regard to your question concerning Ms M.S.’s state of health and treatment and my observations on her health problems ... I confirm that she has been my patient since March 2008. She is a person with polymorphic health issues, and, in terms of the somatic aspect of her state of health, abdominal sensations related to the gynaecological area (a gynaecologist has prescribed surgery, which the patient constantly refuses) and thereby related anaemia – of course, treated by an alternative therapy. Because of a number of other health issues (frequent headaches, lumbar pain) she has been sent for specialist examinations, which attested to a sufficiency of outpatient treatment, in the form of both medication and physiotherapy. Unfortunately, the patient has her own peculiar interpretation of her health issues, on which she insists, and therefore I consider that the best help for her would be psychological/psychiatric treatment. Of course, this requires her consent, which so far could not be obtained. The continuity of the treatment is additionally hampered by the patient’s change of her place of residence. Her visits to the doctor are random, and so are her wishes as to the scope and area of treatment. The particular difficulty in the medical treatment of Ms [M.]S. is related to her mental [state].” 8.     On 26 June 2008 the social care centre instituted proceedings in the competent court for divesting the applicant of legal capacity, which was one of the issues giving rise to a case before the Court in M.S. v. Croatia (no.   36337/10, §§ 40-46, 25 April 2013). 9.     Following an expert report of 19 August 2013 indicating that the applicant had been effectively engaged in psychiatric treatment, which had been progressing well, on 9 September 2013 the social care centre withdrew the request to divest her of legal capacity. B.     Circumstances of the applicant’s confinement in a psychiatric hospital 10.     On 29 October 2012 the applicant went to see her family doctor complaining of severe lower-back pain. Her doctor, after having examined her, called the emergency health service and sent the applicant for some further medical checks. 11.     The doctor who received the applicant in the emergency service found that her general condition was good, that she was conscious and well oriented, but that she had difficulty moving. The doctor made a working diagnosis of lumbago and sent the applicant for further medical checks by a neurologist. 12.     The neurologist in the emergency service examined the applicant on the same day and found that the information she was giving was incoherent and disproportionate to her pain, and that she had not been taking her medication. He made a diagnosis of back pain and anxiety disorder, and sent the applicant for a further examination by a psychiatrist. 13.     The applicant was then examined by a psychiatrist in the emergency service who after interviewing her found that she was making fanciful and confusing allegations of persecution by various doctors. The psychiatrist made a diagnosis of acute psychotic disorder, systemic delusional disorder and delusional dysmorphic disorder, and prescribed hospitalisation. 14.     The applicant was immediately admitted to the psychiatric clinic of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre ( Klinički bolnički centar R., Klinika za psihijatriju ; hereinafter: “the hospital”), a public health-care institution. The relevant parts of the admission record, in so far as legible, indicate as follows: “Date of admission: 29.10.2012 Date and time of hospitalisation: 29.10.2012 ... Admission diagnosis: ... anxiety disorder ... Patient’s attitude towards the examination: refused examination by a psychiatrist; requested a somatic examination ... Psychological condition: conscious and well oriented, suspicious ... tense in the psychomotor sense ... distanced, cold, with ideas of ... persecution, control ... Neurological condition: syndrome of back pain ... Patient’s attitude towards the hospitalisation: refuses Consent: NO ... Physical intervention: physical restraint, tying to a bed ...” 15.     In the evening of the same day, another doctor examined the applicant. The relevant part of the examination record reads: “The patient was hospitalised after an examination by Dr [T.]L., and after having been treated in the [emergency ward] for persistant severe back pain (documentation in attachment). She was brought on a stretcher, tied down, maintaining conscience and orientation, negative, arguing, yelling, agitated, affectively dissolute, with a mind-flow disorder, substantively paranoid ideas. ... Diagnosis: Acute psychotic disorder F 23.2 Delusional disorder ... Fixation. Th. according to the list.” 16.     According to the applicant, following her admission to hospital she was tied to a bed with four belts tightened around her ankles and wrists, and forcefully injected with a strong drug. She was kept in that position throughout the night and felt severe pain in her back. Her left leg was restrained in such a position that the belts caused her additional pain. The room was small and had no windows. The following morning the belts were removed and she was taken to another room in the psychiatric hospital. 17.     According to the Government, following the applicant’s admission to hospital she was given the usual treatment for patients in a state of psychotic agitation and was then placed in an isolation room. The room had a direct connection with the adjacent staff room and was under constant video surveillance. The room measured 2.50 by 2.12 metres and the height of the ceiling was 3.15 metres. It was equipped only with one bed. It had a heating and air-conditioning system, as well as access to sanitary facilities. The belts used to restrain the applicant to the bed were specially adapted so as to avoid any injuries. 18.     The Government further explained that the applicant had been tied to the bed in the isolation room from the time of her admission to hospital at 8.50 p.m. on 29 October 2012 until the next morning. She was then taken to a regular hospital room where she was again restrained until 12 noon. During that time her condition and all her needs were regularly monitored. After the initial period following the applicant’s admission to hospital until her release, she was not restrained again. 19.     The available medical records concerning the physical restraint used on the applicant in the hospital show that this method was used in the period between 8.50 p.m. on 29 October 2012 until around 12 noon on 30 October 2012. The relevant medical record monitoring the applicant’s physical restraining, in so far as legible, reads as follows: “29/30.10 –          brought by [the emergency service] on a stretcher ... –          upon admission screaming, restive, kicking –          came [to the emergency service] because of back pain –          taken to the isolation box (hands and legs fixed), screaming, threatening, restive ... –          psychotic, paranoid [ideas] –          drunk water –          complains of lower back pain –          did not sleep well during the night, called [for assistance], drunk water (approximately one litre) ... –          manipulative –          did not sign the consent to hospitalisation, ... 30.10.2012 –            morning hygiene performed in the box –            ... around 12 p.m. taken to the intensive care ward ... complains of back pain, unaware of her condition, paranoid ...” C.     Decisions on the applicant’s confinement 20.     On 30 October 2012 the hospital informed the R. County Court ( Županijski sud u R. ) that the applicant had been involuntarily admitted for treatment on 29 October 2012, that she had refused further hospitalisation and that her mental condition prevented her from making a sound decision in that respect. 21.     On the same day the R. County Court instituted proceedings for the applicant’s involuntary retention and appointed a legal-aid lawyer, P.R., to represent her. 22.     On 31 October 2012 the judge conducting the proceedings visited the applicant in the hospital. The record of the visit in its entirety reads: “[Number of the case file] OFFICIAL NOTE On 31 October 2012 the judge conducting the proceedings visited the respondent M.S. in hospital and interviewed her. She stated that because of back-pain problems on 29 October 2012 she had visited her family doctor in L., but then she had been placed in hospital by subterfuge. She alleged that she had learned that she and several other patients would be used for ‘practising’ by some foreign doctors. When asked by the judge she replied that her parents were not alive, that she was not married and did not have children, and that she had a sister living near her in L. During the conversation she stated that she had never been previously treated in a psychiatric hospital. In R., 31 October 2012     [Signature]” 23.     On the same day the judge provisionally extended the applicant’s involuntary retention until 6 November 2012. The judge also commissioned a psychiatric expert report concerning the applicant’s mental state and scheduled a hearing for 6 November 2012, to which he invited the applicant’s representative, P.R., and the expert. 24.     At the hearing on 6 November 2012 the expert submitted a psychiatric report drawn up on 2 November 2012 whereby he found, based on the medical documentation relevant to the applicant’s admission to hospital and an interview with her, that she had manifested a psychotic disorder amounting to a serious mental illness. He also considered that the applicant’s release from the hospital could seriously endanger her health and that it was absolutely necessary to order her involuntary retention for a further month. The hearing lasted in total ten minutes. The applicant’s representative and the judge conducting the proceedings had no questions for the expert. 25.     On the same day the R. County Court ordered the applicant’s involuntary retention in the hospital until 28 November 2012, with the following statement of reasons: “On 30 October 2012 the [hospital] informed [this court] that the respondent had been involuntarily admitted to that institution. It submitted the relevant medical documentation as required under section 27 of the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act (Official Gazette nos. 11/1997, 27/1998, 128/1999 and   79/2002). When deciding on the necessity of the respondent’s involuntary retention and its duration, [this court] commissioned an expert report from Dr A.Č., a neuropsychiatrist from R.; examined the medical documentation; and the judge responsible for the case visited and interviewed the respondent in [the hospital]. Based on the examination of the respondent and the medical documentation, the expert found that she was demonstrating symptoms of a manifest psychotic disorder, that she had a serious mental disorder and that her release [from hospital] at this stage would seriously endanger her health. Thus the expert considered that the respondent absolutely needed treatment in a psychiatric hospital for the duration of a month ... The respondent’s representative had no objections to the expert report, and this court also considers that the report is adept and objective and in compliance with other documentation from the case file. Given that the conditions for the respondent’s involuntary retention in hospital have been met, within the meaning of sections 22(1) and 33(3) of the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act, it was decided as noted in the operative part of this decision.” 26.     The decision was served on the applicant and her legal-aid representative, the hospital and the competent social care centre. 27.     On 7 November 2012 the applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision before a three-judge panel of the R. County Court, arguing that there was no reason for her confinement in a psychiatric hospital. She also stressed that at the time of lodging the appeal she was under strong medication. 28.     On 9 November 2012 the applicant’s sister, explaining that she was acting on behalf of the applicant because the applicant was under strong medication, lodged a further appeal before a three-judge panel of the R. County Court. She contended that the applicant had been suffering from serious back pain and because of that had visited her doctor. However, she had been forcefully taken to the psychiatric hospital. In the hospital she had been tied to a bed and had spent the entire night in agony because of the severe lower-back pain. Furthermore, she complained that nobody had ever explained to the applicant the relevant procedure and that she had realised only later that one of the persons who had visited her in the hospital was a judge. She also stressed that the legal aid lawyer had not visited the applicant during the proceedings. This appeal was signed by the applicant and her sister. 29.     The applicant addressed a handwritten complaint to the director of the hospital and the director of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre, dated 8   November 2012, which was attached to the above appeal (see paragraph   28 above). She complained that she had been tied to a bed in the hospital without any reason and in violation of her human dignity. She also stressed that nobody had taken into account her lower-back pain problems, or explained to her the relevant procedure. She further contended that her legal aid lawyer had never visited her and that her internment in the hospital had been contrary to the relevant domestic law and had even raised issues of criminal responsibility. 30.     The applicant’s complaint was never forwarded to the hospital’s director or any other competent hospital authority. 31.     On 13 November 2012 a three-judge panel of the R. County Court dismissed the appeals as ill-founded, endorsing the findings of the first-instance court. The relevant part of the decision reads: “It has been established in the case at issue that the respondent had lacked the capacity to make a critical assessment of her condition and illness and that she had been diagnosed with an acute psychotic disorder (F23.2) and systemic delusional disorder (F22.I.O.) Furthermore, it was established that the respondent had been tense in the psychomotor sense, affectively cold, dissociated, and that she had manifested a number of psychopathological conditions such as derealisation, depersonalisation, paranoid systemic ideas of persecution, pressure and control, that she had lacked the capacity to make a critical assessment of her condition, and that her release from hospital could seriously endanger her health. This court finds that this satisfies the requirements under section 22(1) of the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act, providing for the possibility of involuntary treatment. The above considerations, in particular the respondent’s state of health, as well as her appeal arguments, suggest that she is unable to make a critical assessment of her condition, and therefore this court considers that her release at this stage could seriously endanger her health. As to the arguments concerning the breach of the respondent’s rights and inadequate medical treatment, she is instructed to forward her complaints to the State Board for the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders within the Ministry of Health and the Hospital’s Ethical Board.” 32.     This decision was served on the applicant and her sister, the applicant’s legal aid representative, the hospital and the competent social care centre. However, from the case file it does not appear that any further action was taken. 33.     On 14 November 2012 the applicant sent a letter to the hospital’s director expressing her satisfaction with the hospital diet. 34.     On 3 December 2012 the hospital informed the R. County Court that the applicant had been discharged from hospital on 29 November 2012. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW A.     Constitution 35.     The relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , Official Gazette nos. 56/1990, 135/1997, 8/1998, 113/2000, 124/2000, 28/2001, 41/2001, 55/2001, 76/2010 and 85/2010) read as follows: Article 23 “No one shall be subjected to any form of ill-treatment ...” Article 25 “All detainees and convicted persons shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for their dignity.” Article 46 “Everyone has the right to submit objections and complaints, to give suggestions to the state and public authorities and to receive a reply in that respect.” B.     Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act 36.     The relevant provisions of the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders Act ( Zakon o zaštiti osoba s duševnim smetnjama , Official Gazette nos. 11/1997, 27/1998, 128/1999 and 79/2002) provide: V.     Involuntary admission and involuntary retention in a psychiatric institution Section 5 “(1)     The dignity of persons with mental disorders shall be protected and respected in all circumstances. (2)     Persons with mental disorders have the right to protection from any form of ill-treatment or degrading treatment. ...” Section 6 “Psychiatrists and other health-care workers shall organise the treatment of persons with mental disorders, ensuring minimal restrictions to their rights and freedoms as well as minimising any measures causing them physical and psychological discomfort or diminishing their personal integrity and human dignity. Section 7 “In providing treatment to persons with mental disorders, psychiatrists and other health-care workers shall give priority to consensual cooperation and to respecting the wishes and needs of the persons with mental disorders over coercive measures.” Section l0 “(1)     The involuntary confinement and involuntary retention of persons with mental disorders shall be subject to judicial scrutiny in accordance with the procedure specified in this Act. ...” Section 11 “(1)     Any person with a mental disorder who is consensually or involuntarily retained in a psychiatric institution shall have the right to: 1.     be informed at the time of admission, or later at his or her request, of his or her rights and duties and the manner of securing those rights, ... 6.     submit complaints directly to the director of the psychiatric institution or head of department regarding the treatment methods, diagnosis, discharge from the institution and breach of his or her rights and freedoms; 7.     submit requests and, without any supervision and limitations, complaints, appeals and other legal remedies before the competent judicial and state authorities; 8.     consult at their own expense a doctor or a lawyer of their choice; ...” Section 22 “(1)     A seriously mentally disturbed individual who, owing to his mental disturbance, seriously and directly endangers his own life, health or safety, or the life, health and safety of others, may be placed in a psychiatric hospital without his or her consent, in accordance with the procedure for involuntary admission as provided for in this Act. ...” Section 23 “(1)     The individual referred to in section 22 shall be admitted to a psychiatric hospital ... based on a prescription of a doctor not employed in the hospital in question and who has examined the person personally and provided a relevant record thereof. ...” Section 25 “(1)     The psychiatrist who admits a person under section 23 ... of this Act shall commence his or her diagnostic and therapeutic treatment immediately and based on such treatment, [the psychiatrist] shall, within seventy-two hours, assess whether there are reasons for involuntary admission provided for under section 22 of this Act. ...” Section 26 “(1)     If the psychiatrist finds that the grounds for involuntary admission under section   22 of this Act have been met, he or she shall adopt a decision to that effect which must be reasoned and noted in the medical documentation. (2)     The psychiatrist shall inform the admitted person of that decision in an appropriate manner and explain the reasons for and objectives of the involuntary admission as well as the rights and duties of the person concerned under this Act.” Section 27 “(1)     The psychiatric institution to which a person with mental disorders was involuntarily admitted under section 22 of this Act shall immediately, or within a maximum of twelve hours after the adoption of the decision on involuntary admission, directly or by means of electronic communication inform the [competent] County Court about the involuntary admission and shall forward [to that court] the records of the medical examination together with the reasons for the involuntary admission. ...” Section 29 “(1)     The proceedings for the involuntary admission of a person with a mental disorder to a psychiatric institution shall be in the competence of a single judge of the [competent] County Court. ...” Section 30 “(1)     When the County Court receives the notice on involuntary admission or otherwise learns of the involuntary admission, it shall ex officio institute the relevant proceedings and appoint a legal aid lawyer to represent the person concerned if he or she does not already have one. (2)     The judge referred to in section 29(1) of this Act shall immediately, or within a maximum of seventy-two hours after receiving the information about the involuntary admission, visit the person in the psychiatric institution and if the medical condition so allows, interview him or her. (3)     Within the time-limit under subsection (2), the judge shall extend the involuntary commitment, which cannot exceed eight days from the time of involuntary admission. ...” Section 3l “(1)     Before deciding on the involuntary retention or discharge of a person with mental disorders, the court shall obtain an expert report of a psychiatrist from the list of permanent court experts, who is not employed in the psychiatric institution where the person concerned is interned, to ascertain whether the involuntary confinement is absolutely necessary. ... (3)     After examining the person with a mental disorder, the psychiatrist referred to in subsection (1) shall submit a written opinion to the court. (4)     Before deciding on the involuntary retention or discharge of a person with mental disorders, the court may obtain information from the social care centre and other persons who could provide relevant information.” Section 33 “(1)     Based on its findings the court shall issue a decision on whether the involuntarily admitted person will remain in the psychiatric institution or be discharged. ... (3)     In its decision the court shall determine the duration of the involuntary retention which may not exceed a period of thirty days from the time of the psychiatrist’s decision on the involuntary admission of the person with a mental disorder.” Section 36 “... (2)     The decision [on involuntary retention] shall be served on the retained person, his or her legal representative, a close relative with whom he or she shares the same household, another authorised representative, the competent social care centre and the psychiatric institution where the person has been retained.” Section 37 “(1)     An appeal may be lodged against a decision on involuntary retention before the County Court. (2)     An appeal may be lodged by any person referred to in section 36(2) of this Act. ...” Section 38 “(1)     The appeal lodged under section 37(1) of this Act shall be decided by a three-judge panel of the County Court. ...” VIII Use of physical force in the protection of persons with mental disorders Section 54 “(1)     Physical force or seclusion to protect persons with mental disorders may be used in the psychiatric institution only when this is the only means to prevent the person concerned endangering the life or health of others or his or her own life and health or damaging valuable property. (2)     Physical force or seclusion under subsection (1) shall be used only to the extent and in a manner absolutely necessary to eliminate any danger caused by an attack by the person with mental disorders. (3)     The use of physical force or seclusion may last only for as long as necessary to achieve the purpose referred to in subsection (1).” Section 56 “(1)     A psychiatrist shall make the decision on the use of physical force or seclusion referred to in section 54 of this Act and shall supervise its application. ...” Section 57 “When placing a person with mental disorders in solitary confinement or using a straitjacket or other means of physical restraint against [such] a person, the continuous monitoring of his or her physical and mental condition shall be carried out by the hospital staff.” Section 58 “(1)     If possible in the circumstances, the person concerned shall be cautioned before physical force is used. (2)     The reasons for using physical force, the means used and the measures taken, as well as the name of the person responsible for the decision on its use must be registered in the medical records.” IX State Board for the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders and psychiatric institutions Section 60 “(1)     The State Board for the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders shall be established within the Ministry of Health. ...” Section 6l “(1)     The State Board for the Protection of Individuals with Mental Disorders shall be competent for: ... c)     supervising the procedure provided for in this Act and recommending to the psychiatric institution and the competent state body measures for the elimination of unlawful conduct, d)     monitoring the observance of human rights and freedoms and dignity of persons with mental disorders, e)     based on its own assessment or at the request of a third party, carrying out investigations of individual cases of involuntary admission to and involuntary retention in a psychiatric institution ..., f)     receiving complaints from persons with mental disorders, their legal representatives, family members, other representatives, third parties or a social care centre and carrying out all necessary inquires and supervision, ...” C.     Patients’ Rights Act 37.     The relevant part of the Patients’ Rights Act ( Zakon o zaštiti prava pacijenata , Official Gazette nos. 169/2004 and 37/2008) provides: III Local Boards for the Protection of Patients’ Rights Section 30 “In securing and promoting patients’ rights, each local authority shall establish a Board for the Protection of Patients’ Rights (hereinafter: the Board).” Scope of work of the Board Section 33 “The Board shall perform the following tasks: ... - monitor breaches of individual patients’ rights at local level, ...” Section 36 “The Board shall notify the complainant within fifteen days of its activities concerning the complaint.” Section 37 The Board shall have the right to access premises on which health care services are provided ... and to monitor the manner in which patients’ rights are secured. The Board shall prepare a report on the inspection under the first paragraph of this section, which shall be forwarded immediately, and at the latest within eight days, to the competent authority under the Health Care Act and the Sanitary Inspection Act, ..., the Medical Profession Act, the Dental Care Services Act, the Pharmacy Act, the Medical-biochemical Activities Act and the Nursing Act ... The body referred to in the second paragraph of this section must inform the Board of its activities ... When the body referred to in the second paragraph of this section, based on its activities, finds that there is a reasonable suspicion that the breach of the patients’ rights under this Act amounts to a minor offence or a criminal offence, it shall immediately, and at the latest thirty days following its inspection, ... institute minor offences proceedings or lodge a criminal complaint [before the competent authority]. “ IV Board for the Protection and Promotion of Patients’ Rights of the Ministry of Health Section 38 “In securing social care that respects patients’ rights, in the context of the rights and duties of the Republic of Croatia in the sphere of heath care, the Minister [of Health] shall appoint a Board for the Protection and Promotion of Patients’ Rights of the Ministry of Health. ...” Section 39 “The Board for the Protection and Promotion of Patients’ Rights of the Ministry of Health shall perform the following tasks: - supervise the manner in which patients’ rights are secured under this Act, ...” D.     Heath Care Act 38.     The relevant provisions of the Health Care Act ( Zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti , Official Gazette nos. 150/2008, 71/2010, 139/2010, 22/2011, 84/2011, 154/2011, 12/2012, 35/2012 and 70/2012) read: Section 23 “... Everyone has the right to seek, directly or in writing, the protection of his or her rights concerning the quality, content and type of health-care services provided, from the director of the health institution ... The director ... must act without delay following a complaint and notify the person concerned in writing within eight days of the measures he has taken. If the person is not satisfied with the measures that were taken, he or she may seek protection of his or her rights before the Minister, competent Chamber or competent court.” Ethical board Section 68 “The Ethical Board of a medical institution ensures that its activities are performed in compliance with the principles of medical ethics and deontology. ...” Section 69 “The Ethical Board of a medical institution: - monitors the implementation of ethical and deontological principles of health professions in the activities of the medical institution, ...” XVII Supervision Section 167 “Supervision of the work of medical institutions ... includes: - internal supervision, - expert supervision by the Chamber, - health inspections.” Health inspectorate Section l7l “Inspections of the implementation and enforcement of laws, other regulations and other acts in the field of health care as well as supervision of the activities of health institutions ... shall be carried out by the Ministry [of Health] - health inspectorate. ... In the event of professional errors by a health worker or the breach of principles of medical ethics and deontology, the health inspectorate shall transfer the case to the competent Chamber.” Section 178 “The health inspectorate in particular: ... 2.     supervises the lawfulness of the work of health institutions ... 3.     examines submissions of legal and natural persons concerning supervision under the defined competencies, and notifies the complainant in writing of the actions taken.” Section 179 “In the course of an inspection the inspectorate shall supervise in particular: 1. the manner in which patients are admitted, treated and discharged, 2. the application of means and methods for prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and rehabilitation, ...” Section 180 “In course of the inspection referred to in section 179 of this Act the inspectorate shall have the following rights and obligations: ... 2.     to prohibit the application of measures and activities that are contrary to the law or other regulations; ...” Section 185 “If the inspectorate has reason to believe that the violation of the law constitutes a criminal or minor offence, it shall, together with a decision under its competence, without delay and no later than l5 days after the inspection ... lodge a request to prosecute instituting minor offences proceedings or a criminal complaint instituting criminal proceedings. ...” E.     Medical Professions Act 39.     The relevant provisions of the Medical Professions Act ( Zakon o liječništvu , Official Gazette nos. 121/2003 and 117/2008) provide: Professional supervision of doctors Section 30 “The Croatian Medical Chamber supervises the work of doctors ... The performance of supervision under the first paragraph of this section is ... in particular based on: - written and signed complaints from citizens, - complaints received from the Minister of Health and other state authorities, - permanent and occasional checks of the work of doctors.” Cooperation between the Croatian Medical Chamber and the Ministry of Health inspectorate Section 31 “In performing the supervision under section 30 of this Act, the Croatian Medical Chamber shall cooperate with the health inspectorate of the Ministry of Health. ...” Disciplinary responsibility of doctors Section 52 “Doctors shall be held responsible for disciplinary offences before the disciplinary bodies of the Croatian Medical Chamber. ...” F.     Criminal Code 40.     The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code ( Kazneni zakon , Official Gazette nos. 110/1997, 27/1998, 50/2000, 129/2000, 51/2001, 111/2003, 190/2003, 105/2004, 84/2005, 71/2006, 110/2007, 152/2008 and   57/2011) provide: Article 8 “(1)     Criminal proceedings in respect of criminal offences shall be instituted by the State Attorney’s Office in the interest of the Republic of Croatia and its citizens.” Unlawful deprivation of liberty Article 124 “(1)     Whoever unlawfully detains another person, keeps him or her detained or otherwise deprives or limits his or her freedom of movement, shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of between three months and one year. ... (3)     If the offence under paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Article was committed ... in a cruel manner ..., the perpetrator shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of between three and ten years.” Medical malpractice Article 240 “(1)     A doctor or a dentist who, in rendering medical services, fails to apply measures for the protection of patients in accordance with the requirements of the medical profession or applies an obviously inadequate remedy or method of treatment, or in general acts carelessly, thus causing the deterioration of an illness or the impairment of a person’s health, shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of between three months and three years. (2)     The punishment provided under paragraph (1) of this Article shall be applied in respect of a medical professional who, in the performance of his or her activities, fails to apply measures for the protection of patients or acts contrary to the requirements of professional conduct ..., or otherwise acts carelessly, and thereby causes the deterioration of an illness or the impairment of a person’s health. ...” G.     Code of Criminal Procedure 41.     The relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , Official Gazette nos. 110/1997, 27/1998, 58/1999, 112/1999, 58/2002 and 62/2003) at the material time provided: Article 171 “(1)     All state bodies and legal entities shall report any criminal offence that is subject to official prosecution about which they have been informed or about which they have otherwise learned. ...” Article 173 “(1)     Criminal complaints shall be submitted to the competent State Attorney in writing or orally. ... (3)     If a criminal complaint has been submitted before a court, the police or a State Attorney who is not competent to deal with the matter, they shall forward the criminal complaint to the competent State Attorney.” H.     Civil Obligations Act 42.     The relevant part of the Civil Obligations Act ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , Official Gazette nos. 35/2005, 41/2008 and 125/2011), reads as follows: Section 1046 “Damage is ... infringement of the right to respect for one’s personal dignity (non-pecuniary damage).” Request to desist from a violating personal integrity Section 1048 “Anyone may request a court or other competent authority to order the cessation of an activity which violates his or her personal integrity and the elimination of its consequences.” I.     Courts’ Rules 43.     The relevant provision of the Courts’ Rules ( Sudski poslovnik , Official Gazette nos. 158/2009, 03/2011, 34/2011, 100/2011, 123/2011, 138/2011, 38/2012, 111/2012, 39/2013 and 48/2013) provides: Section 163 “Irregularities and omissions found when opening letters shall be noted next to the receipt stamp ... If the envelope contains a submission addressed to another court, body or legal entity, a relevant note shall be made next to the receipt note (such as “wrongly submitted”) and the submission shall be forwarded to whom it is addressed. ...” J.     Internal rules of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre on processing individual complaints 44.     The relevant part of document no. JZK- SOPK-OP- 006.00 of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre, published in 2012, and available on the internet, provides: “PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to provide a comprehensive procedure for receipt, processing and responding to the complaints/objections of patients and employees of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre. RESPONSIBILITIES The application and supervision of this [document] shall be the obligation of the Managing Board of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre. The directors of clinics and deputy directors for quality shall be tasked with the reception and handling of complaints. The deputy director for quality shall reply to complaints. PROCEDURE 1. Submission of a complaint/objection Complaints shall be submitted in writing on a form provided for that purpose ... A person may also express his or her dissatisfaction orally. Submissions shall be made to the director of the clinic where the event at issue occurred. Every person has the right to submit a complaint/objection directly to: ... - the competent court. 2. Procedure after the receipt of a complaint/objection   ... The director of the clinic shall draft a report (Report on the complaint/objection) and submit it, together with the complaint, to the deputy director for quality. ...” III.     RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL A.     The United Nations 1.     Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care 45.     The relevant provisions of the United Nations Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care (A/RES/46/119, 17 December 1991) read: Principle 1 Fundamental freedoms and basic rights “... 2.     All persons with a mental illness, or who are being treated as such persons, shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.” Principle 9 Treatment “1.     Every patient shall have the right to be treated in the least restrictive environment and with the least restrictive or intrusive treatment appropriate to the patient’s health needs and the need to protect the physical safety of others. ... 3.     Mental health care shall always be provided in accordance with applicable standards of ethics for mental health practitioners, including internationally accepted standards such as the Principles of Medical Ethics relevant to the role of health personnel, particularly physicians, in the protection of prisoners and detainees against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. Mental health knowledge and skills shall never be abused. ...” Principle 11 Consent to treatment “... 11.     Physical restraint or involuntary seclusion of a patient shall not be employed except in accordance with the officially approved procedures of the mental health facility and only when it is the only means available to prevent immediate or imminent harm to the patient or others. It shall not be prolonged beyond the period which is strictly necessary for this purpose. All instances of physical restraint or involuntary seclusion, the reasons for them and their nature and extent shall be recorded in the patient’s medical record. A patient who is restrained or secluded shall be kept under humane conditions and be under the care and close and regular supervision of qualified members of the staff. A personal representative, if any and if relevant, shall be given prompt notice of any physical restraint or involuntary seclusion of the patient. ...” Principle 12 Notice of rights “1.     A patient in a mental health facility shall be informed as soon as possible after admission, in a form and a language which the patient understands, of all his or her rights in accordance with the present Principles and under domestic law, and the information shall include an explanation of those rights and how to exercise them. 2.     If and for so long as a patient is unable to understand such information, the rights of the patient shall be communicated to the personal representative, if any and if appropriate, and to the person or persons best able to represent the patient’s interests and willing to do so. 3.     A patient who has the necessary capacity has the right to nominate a person who should be informed on his or her behalf, as well as a person to represent his or her interests to the authorities of the facility.” Principle 16 Involuntary admission “1.     A person may be admitted involuntarily to a mental health facility as a patient or,) having already been admitted voluntarily as a patient, be retained as an involuntary patient in the mental health facility if, and only if, a qualified mental health practitioner authorized by law for that purpose determines, in accordance with principle 4 above, that that person has a mental illness and considers: (a)     That, because of that mental illness, there is a serious likelihood of immediate or imminent harm to tha