CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mars 2017

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 13 March 2017   THIRD SECTION Application no. 35722/15 Lidiya Pavlovna SIDOROVA against Russia lodged on 2 July 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Lidiya Pavlovna Sidorova, is a Russian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Dimitrovgrad, Ulyanovsk Region. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In 2012-2014 the applicant lodged a number of complaints with the local police department concerning the allegedly unathorised use of the land plot near the block of flats where her family resided. She also alleged that there had been a number of assassination attempts planned against her. On 15   January 2014 the head of the intermunicipal police department forwarded the following letter to the Psychiatric and Narcological Service: “Following the receipt of numerous complaints, the [police department] asks you to examine (check) [the applicant] ... at her place of residence. Her behaviour is inadequate. She constantly talks about conspiracies against her. The complaints lodged by the residents and entrepreneurs about her aggressive behaviour have grown in number. [The applicant] might cause harm to others.” On 30   January 2014 a psychiatrist visited the applicant at her place of residence and examined her. On 31   January 2014 the psychiatrist informed the police that the applicant did not have any psychiatric disorder. On 12   March 2014, in response to the applicant’s complaint, the Dimitrovgrad Town Court found the psychiatrist’s actions unlawful. The court established that, contrary to the applicable legislation, the psychiatrist had failed to obtain the applicant’s consent to a psychiatric examination and that the applicant had objected to such an examination. On 17   March 2014 the applicant asked the court to find the police’s decision to have her assessed by the psychiatrist unlawful. She considered that the decision had been arbitrary and that it had amounted to an unjustified interference with her private life. On 29 April 2014 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court found that the actions of the police had had a basis in law. The court interpreted the letter of 15   January 2014 issued by the police department as a request for information from the psychiatrist as to whether the applicant had suffered from any mental illness. It further reasoned that the police had not asked the psychiatrists to examine the applicant. The police had received numerous complaints from the applicant who alleged that she had been persecuted by unknown persons. The police had conducted an inquiry which had not confirmed the applicant’s allegations. Accordingly, the police had decided to obtain information on the applicant’s mental condition. Lastly, the court reasoned that the fact, that, in response to the police’s request for information, the psychiatric service had examined the applicant unlawfully, had no bearing on the lawfulness of the police’s actions. On 22   July 2014 the Ulyanovsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 29 April 2014 on appeal. On 17   December 2014 the Regional Court refused to grant the applicant leave to cassation appeal. On 26   March 2015 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a similar decision in response to the applicant’s application for cassation appeal. COMPLAINT The applicant complains that the police’s decision to have her examined by a psychiatrist was contrary to the requirements of Article   8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     As regards the letter of 15   January 2014 issued by the head of the intermunicipal police department and asking the psychiatric and narcological service to “examine [the applicant] at her place of residence” (“проверить по месту жительства [заявительницу]”), has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her 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?   2.     What is the meaning in Russian of the phrase “examine (check)” [the applicant] at her place of residence” (“проверить по месту жительства [заявительницу]”) and how did the national courts come to the conclusion that it meant “to submit information about the [applicant’s] mental history”?