CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 décembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }     Communicated on 18 December 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 2111/13 Ion ROTARU against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 27 November 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Ion Rotaru, is a Moldovan national, who was born in   1970 and lives in Hîrbovăț. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was in conflict with C. over ownership rights to land in his village. According to the applicant, it was in relation with that conflict that on 26 April 2011 he was forced by a police officer into an ambulance and placed in the Central Psychiatric Hospital in Chișinău. He received treatment against his will. On 3 June 2011 the applicant was released from hospital; the medical record referred to the diagnosis of schizotypal personality disorder. On 13 February 2012 two police officers came to his home and asked him to sign a consent form for hospitalisation. The applicant refused and attempted to flee but was apprehended and forced by the police officers into an ambulance. In the psychiatric hospital he had his hands and legs tied and medication was administered against his will. On 22 March 2012 the applicant was released from hospital; the medical record referred to the diagnosis of schizophrenia. On 13 July 2012 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Anenii Noi police asking it to investigate his case of forced hospitalizations in a psychiatric hospital and the actions of police officer S.P. By a letter of 24 July 2012 the police replied that the police officer acted within legal limits. On 27 July 2012 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Anenii Noi Prosecutor’s Office and to the Anenii Noi District Court asking for the the case to be investigated and disagreeing with the answer obtained from the police. He argued, inter alia, that he had been forced to sign documents against his will. By a letter of 13 August 2012 the Prosecutor’s Office replied that the actions of the police officers concerning the applicant’s placement in the psychiatric hospital had been lawful. The applicant further complained to the General Prosecutor’s Office and to the Anenii Noi investigating judge. His complaints were redirected to the Anenii Noi Prosecutor’s Office which by letters of 3 September 2012 and 25 October 2012 replied that the applicant’s hospitalisations had been lawful because he himself had consented to them. The letters also inform the applicant of his right to appeal in court (in administrative proceedings ( contencios administrativ )) if he was not satisfied with the reply provided by the prosecutor’s office to his complaint. On 11 October 2012 the applicant complained to the Anenii Noi District Court, stating inter alia his disagreement concerning the prosecutor’s finding that he had consented to the hospitalisations and in particular that he had been forced by the police officer to sign the consent form. He asked for the examination of his previous complaints. On 16 October 2012 the Anenii   Noi District Court returned the applicant’s complaint without examination arguing that the applicant should have submitted a complaint according to administrative proceedings. On 23 October 2012 the applicant appealed the decision of 16   October   2012 stating his disagreement with the way the prosecutor’s office had examined his complaint. On 20 December 2012 the Bender Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as ill-founded. On an unspecified date the applicant initiated civil proceedings against C., the police officer S.P. and doctor A.P. seeking the acknowledgement of his unlawful forced hospitalizations in a psychiatric hospital. In court, the respondents rejected the applicant’s claims and questioned his fitness to plead before courts. They asked the court to order an in-patient medical examination of the applicant in a psychiatric institution. The applicant disagreed. On 26 March 2013 the Anenii Noi District Court ordered a medical examination based on the applicant’s medical record without committing the applicant for an in-patient examination. On 27 March 2013 the applicant appealed, noting that he did not agree with the medical examination, that he had adequate relationships and conduct in respect of other people, and that he was employed as a history teacher and caring for two underage children. On 3 October 2013 the Bender Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal as ill-founded. The court referred to the applicant’s previous hospitalisation in a psychiatric hospital and records as to his diagnosis as sufficient ground for ordering such a medical examination. The proceedings are pending. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant extracts of the domestic law concerning psychiatric assistance are provided in the judgment of David v. Moldova (no. 41578/05, § 25, 27 November 2007). COMPLAINTS The applicant complains that his forced hospitalizations were unlawful and therefore contrary to Article 5 of the Convention. The applicant complains that the forced medical treatment given to him in the psychiatric hospital amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     With regard to the treatment administrated to the applicant in the psychiatric hospital, has he been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Considering the medical treatment imposed on the applicant during his time in the psychiatric hospital, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article   8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   3.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the deprivation of liberty lawful under domestic law?   The Government are requested to provide the Court with a full copy of the applicant’s medical file for the period of his detention at the Chișinău Psychiatric Hospital.