CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 18 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB6A7F5BF { width:17.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7D49190C { width:104.74pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 23903/20 E.S. against Finland   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 June 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Lorraine Schembri Orland , President ,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Frédéric Krenc , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   23903/20) against the Republic of Finland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 12 June 2020 by a Finnish national, Ms E.S. (“the applicant”), who was born in 1980, lives in Pyhämaa and was represented by Mr M. Hakanen, a lawyer practising in Turku; the decision to give notice of the application to the Finnish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms K. Oinonen, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the decision not to have the applicant’s name disclosed; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns administration of medication against the will of the applicant during her involuntary treatment in a psychiatric hospital. 2.     By a decision of 17 January 2020, the applicant was committed to hospital with a view to undergoing an involuntary psychiatric treatment. During the treatment she was administrated medication against her will on five separate occasions, namely on 13 and 17 February 2020, on 3 and 15   April 2020 and on 1 May 2020. 3.     The applicant appealed against the committal decision to the Turku Administrative Court seeking, inter alia, that the involuntary administration of medication be discontinued. 4 .     By a decision of 13 March 2020, the Administrative Court upheld the contested decision. In response to the applicant’s request for discontinuation of the involuntary administration of medication, the court held that the jurisdiction of the administrative courts did not extend to decisions on medication. On 18   May 2020 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant’s request for leave to appeal against the Administrative Court’s decision. 5 .     In the meantime, on 14 April 2020 a hospital doctor decided that the applicant’s involuntary psychiatric treatment should be continued. On 1   June 2020 the Turku Administrative Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant against that decision. She did not seek leave to appeal against the Administrative Court’s decision. 6 .     Meanwhile, on 9 April 2020 the applicant brought a civil action for compensation against the Government of Finland in the Varsinais-Suomi District Court, on the grounds that the administration of medication against her will had been in breach of her rights under the Convention. 7.     By a judgment of 21 April 2021, the District Court ruled for the applicant. After examining the case under Article 8 of the Convention and referring, in particular, to the Court’s judgment in X v. Finland , no.   34806/04, §§   212-223, 3 July 2012, the court held that the applicant’s human rights had been violated because she had not had the possibility to appeal against the decisions on involuntary administration of medication to a court. It accordingly awarded her 8,000 euros (EUR) in compensation, together with accrued default interest. 8.     Following an appeal by the Government, that judgment was overturned on 4 April 2022 by the Turku Court of Appeal, which dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation holding that there had been no violation of the Convention. 9 .     In March 2023 the Supreme Court granted the applicant leave to appeal and, in a judgment of 29 November 2023, held that her human rights had been violated because Finnish legislation did not provide her with remedies that met the conditions laid down in the Finnish Constitution and in Article 8 of the Convention. More specifically, it held that she had not had at her disposal remedies whereby she could obtain a decision of a court of law or another independent judicial body on the lawfulness and proportionality of the involuntary administration of medication, or to have it discontinued. 10 .     The Supreme Court also held that the violation had been so serious that a mere finding of a violation was not sufficient. It therefore awarded the applicant EUR 4,000 in compensation, together with accrued default interest, and all the costs and expenses. 11 .     In assessing the amount of compensation, the Supreme Court relied on its earlier decision in a similar case in which it had awarded EUR 3,000. In that earlier case the Supreme Court had taken the amount awarded in X   v.   Finland (cited above, § 236), namely EUR 10,000, as a reference, but had awarded less to the plaintiff because in X v. Finland (cited above, §§   43 ‑ 63) the treatment period, including involuntary administration of medication, had lasted several months longer, and because in that case the Court had not only found a violation of Article 8 of the Convention but also a violation of Article   5. 12 .     In the applicant’s case the Supreme Court considered that the award should be somewhat higher than in that earlier decision as the lack of proper legal safeguards in her case concerned a longer period of treatment. 13.     Before the Court the applicant complained under Article 8 taken alone, and in conjunction with Article   13 of the Convention, that the involuntary administration of medication had violated her right to respect for her private life, and that she had not had an effective domestic remedy in that regard. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 14 .     The Government contested the admissibility of the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention by arguing that the applicant could no longer claim to be a victim of the violation of that Article because the Supreme Court had (i) acknowledged that violation, and (ii) awarded her appropriate compensation (see paragraphs 9-12 above). 15 .     The applicant submitted that the compensation she had received was too low. 16.     The Court, having regard to its findings in X v. Finland , no. 34806/04, §§   221-222 and 229-230, ECHR 2012, considers that the present application falls to be examined under Article 8 of the Convention taken alone. 17.     It further reiterates that it falls first to the national authorities to redress any alleged violation of the Convention. A decision or measure favourable to the applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for, the breach of the Convention (see, for example, Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, §   115, ECHR   2010). The redress afforded must be appropriate and sufficient (ibid., §   116), which may also depend on the level of compensation awarded at domestic level (see for example, Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no.   26828/06, § 262, ECHR 2012 (extracts)), it being understood that in some circumstances the granting of compensation may be the only possible or practical means whereby redress can be given to the individual for the wrong he or she has suffered (see, for example, Çölgeçen and Others v.   Turkey , nos.   50124/07 and 7 others, § 40, 12 December 2017). 18.     In the present case the Supreme Court has explicitly acknowledged that there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 8 of the Convention by the administration of medication against her will (see paragraph 9 above). That was not disputed by the parties who only disagreed as to whether the compensation the Supreme Court awarded the applicant was sufficient (see paragraphs 10 and 14-15 above). 19 .     In that regard the Court notes that, in assessing the amount of the compensation, the Supreme Court took into account the fact that in the applicant’s case the period of involuntary treatment, including the administration of medication against her will, was shorter than in X v. Finland (cited above, §§ 43-63) and that her case did not concern other violations (see paragraphs 10-12 above). The Court finds the Supreme Court’s considerations pertinent. 20.     The Court considers that the amount of compensation for non ‑ pecuniary damage awarded to the applicant in present case, amounting to 40% of what it had awarded in X v. Finland (cited above, § 236), which covered a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention in addition to a breach of Article 8, does not appear to be unreasonable or disproportionate. 21.     That is so because where, as in the present case, a State has taken a significant step by introducing a compensatory remedy, the Court must leave it a wider margin of appreciation to organise that remedy in a manner consistent with its own legal system and traditions and consonant with the standard of living in the country concerned, even if that results in awards of amounts that are lower than those fixed by the Court in similar cases (see, for example, Cocchiarella v. Italy [GC], no. 64886/01, § 80, ECHR 2006-V; Anastasov and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 65020/13, § 71, 18 October 2016; and J.B. and Others v. Hungary (dec.), nos. 45434/12, 45438/12 and 375/13, § 60, 27 November 2018). 22.     It follows that the present application is inadmissible because the applicant can no longer claim to be the victim of the violation complained of, as required by Article 34 of the Convention. The application must therefore be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 11 July 2024.     Dorothee von Arnim   Lorraine Schembri Orland   Deputy Registrar   President