CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 décembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sB317A4DF { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s98A7B623 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s44C73BBF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       SECOND SECTION Application no. 44376/06 Valentinas RADIUKEVIČIUS against Lithuania lodged on 26 October 2006 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Valentinas Radiukevičius, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Vilnius. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant, a director of an enterprise, was suspected of fraudulent accounting. The authorities opened a criminal investigation. There was evidence that the applicant was suffering from mental illness. On 16   June 2003 the Vilnius City First District Court ordered that the applicant be placed in the Utena Psychiatric Hospital so that the experts could determine whether he could stand trial. By a decision of 4   December 2003 the Vilnius City First District Court found that the applicant had committed the criminal acts attributed to him. However, on the basis of psychiatrists’ conclusions the court held that the applicant had committed the offences while in a state of lacking criminal responsibility, given that as of 1998 he had suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. The court thus ordered that the applicant be placed in the Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital for observation under the general regime. The applicant was not present at the hearing, but was represented by officially-appointed defence counsel. The decision stipulated that within 20 days it could be appealed against to the Vilnius Regional Court. The applicant maintains that neither he nor his lawyer received a copy of the above decision. The applicant also submits that the State-appointed lawyer did not appeal against the decision. As to the applicant, he could not lodge an appeal because he had been placed in a psychiatric institution, and thus deprived of his liberty. On 28   June 2004 the psychiatrists of the Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital recommended that the applicant be released from the institution. The social services and the doctors of that psychiatric institution had to take care of him as an out-patient. On 21 July 2004 the Vilnius City First District Court sent to the applicant’s mother copies of court rulings of 16   June 2003 and 4   December   2003. The court also noted that the six month time-limit to review compulsory medical measure (the applicant’s placement in the Vilnius psychiatric institution) had already passed and the court therefore asked the Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital to review the applicant’s state of health and inform the court accordingly. By a letter of 17   August 2004, the applicant’s mother asked the Vilnius City First District Court to order her son’s release from the Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital where, according to her knowledge, he had been held as of 7 December 2003. She submitted that because of her old age (she was 80 years old) it was hard for her to visit her son. She also stated that she herself was in need of medical assistance and that, in her view, the applicant could continue treatment as an out-patient, because his condition was not very grave. On 18   August 2004 the Vilnius City First District Court decided that the applicant should be immediately released from the Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital. The court based the decision on the psychiatrists’ report of 28   June 2004. The report on the applicant’s health of 11   May 2006 by the Commission for Establishment of Incapacity reads that the applicant is 60 percent incapable. The Commission noted that the applicant should not be employed where the job could put on him excessive psycho-emotional strain ( negali dirbti darbo [susijusio su] padidintu psichoemociniu krūviu ). By a letter of 26   May 2006 the applicant asked the Supreme Court to acquit him in the criminal case and to discontinue the criminal proceedings. He argued that because of his mental condition he had not appealed against the trial court’s decision. Moreover, no one had protected his rights. The lawyer provided by the State had not explained to him the right to appeal against the conviction. The applicant observed that for a long time he had been incapacitated and only now, “when he had a little bit recovered [mentally]”, could he address the court with a request to restore the time-limit for an appeal on points of law. On 31   May 2006 the Supreme Court wrote to the applicant that he had missed the three months time-limit to lodge an appeal on points of law. Furthermore, the time-limit could not be restored if more than one year had passed since the lower court’s decision came into force. B.     Relevant domestic law At the time relevant to this case Article 336 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided that the first instance court’s decision came into force if it had not been appealed against. The time-limit to lodge an appeal was twenty days (Article 313). The Code also provided that an appeal on points of law could be lodged within three months of the date when a court judgment or ruling came into force (Article 370). The time-limit could be renewed if it was missed for serious reasons. However, if more than one year had passed since the lower court’s judgment or decision came into force, the time-limit could not be restored. If the court decides that the person who has committed criminal acts could not understand his actions at the time those actions were committed, it may order a compulsory medical treatment measure – the person’s placement in a psychiatric institution (Article 401 § 2). The person in respect of whom the measure was ordered, his family members, his representative by law or his lawyer have a right to appeal against the measure (Article 404). In accordance with Article 405 § 2 of the Code, the court shall at least once every six months determine the issue regarding the extension of the maximum period of application of the compulsory medical treatment measure, changing the type of measure or discontinuing its application. A representative of the medical institution that submitted a report about the appropriateness of one or another measure must take part in the hearing. The court may also request that the hospitalised person be present at the hearing, unless his mental state does not allow for it. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was given strong medication and as a result became mentally incapable. Invoking Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention the applicant submits that the trial court found him guilty of criminal acts without reason and, as a consequence, he was placed in a psychiatric hospital under the regime of general observation. The applicant also states that the criminal proceedings in his case were unfair and that he could not take part in the hearing. The applicant maintains that he could not appeal against the trial court’s decision, because it had not been given to him. He submits that the 4   December 2003 decision was not given to his lawyer either. The State-appointed lawyer failed to defend him properly before the trial court and did not appeal against the court ruling to order special measures. The applicant also maintains that his family members were not informed about the possibility to lodge an appeal. Lastly, the applicant is dissatisfied that even though he later addressed the Supreme Court, the latter dismissed his request as lodged out of time, although the applicant had been kept in a psychiatric hospital and thus could not address that court earlier.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   1.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in view of the applicant’s treatment and possible forcible administration of medicines at the Utena Psychiatric Hospital or the Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital?   2.     Has the applicant’s detention been in conformity with Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention (see Liuiza v. Lithuania , no. 13472/06, § 55 in limine , 31   July 2012)? Reference is made to Article 405 § 2 of the Criminal Code and the fact that the Vilnius City First District Court ordered the applicant’s placement in a psychiatric institution on 4   December 2003, but reviewed the necessity to hold him at the Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital only on 18   August 2004.   3.     Has the applicant been afforded the right to a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? On this point the Court refers, in particular, to the applicant’s complaint about ineffective legal assistance and his complaint that the Supreme Court did not examine his appeal on points of law. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION 1.     The parties are requested to provide detailed information about the applicant’s mental incapacity, in particular, about his state of mental health and incapacity prior to 11   May 2006.   2.     The Government are requested to provide information about the medical treatment the applicant received in the Utena Psychiatric Hospital or the Vilnius Psychiatric Hospital.   The applicant is requested to submit documents (copies of his complaints, replies he received from the State authorities) about the alleged ill-treatment he had suffered when placed in Utena or Vilnius psychiatric institutions.   3.     The Government are further invited to provide information whether and when the Vilnius City First Distance Court’s decision of 4 December 2003 was been served on the applicant, his family members (in particular, his mother) or his State-appointed lawyer.