CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 février 2018

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sA0B2759 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Communicated on 19 February 2018   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 62423/17 and 75980/17 N.Y. against Russia and M.V. v. Russia (see list appended) The applicants are Russian nationals. The application numbers, dates of introduction, the applicants’ initials and other details, as well as the relevant facts are set out in the table below. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On various dates criminal investigations were initiated against the applicants, however the Russian authorities decided not to pursue criminal prosecution in view of the applicants’ mental health grounds. The domestic courts relieved the applicants of criminal liability for their actions and ordered their involuntary treatment in psychiatric facilities. The applicants’ detention in these facilities was ordered and extended by the courts. COMPLAINTS The applicants complain under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that their placement in psychiatric facilities for involuntary treatment and continued confinement was unlawful. The applicants also complain under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the relevant proceedings. COMMON QUESTIONS 1.     Were the applicants deprived of liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did their placement in psychiatric facilities for involuntary treatment fall within paragraphs (a), (b), or (e) of this provision? 2.     If the applicants’ deprivation of liberty fell under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention, was it in compliance with the requirements of that provision (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands , 24 October 1979, § 39, Series   A no.   33)? 3.     Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil or criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case? The parties are invited to submit their detailed observations in this respect having regard to the Court’s conclusions in Antoine v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 62960/00, 13 May 2003), and Vasenin v. Russia (no. 48023/06, § 130, 21 June 2016).   4.     If yes, did the applicants have a fair hearing in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? CASE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS Application no. 62423/17 . Was the applicant’s continued confinement in psychiatric facilities justified by the persistence of a true mental of a kind or degree warranting such confinement?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant initials date of birth place of residence Represented by Decisions on replacing criminal liability with involuntary treatment and continued treatment   62423/17 13/08/2017 N.Y. 23/10/1954 Ulyanovsk   Yelena Vladimirovna GORASH Zheleznodorozhniy District Court of Ulyanovsk, 6 October 2015 – placement to a psychiatric facility Ulyanovsk Regional Court, 17 April 2017 – latest extension of treatment   75980/17 13/10/2017 V.M. 25/06/1996 Moscow   Konstantin Gennadyevich KOZHEVIN Moscow City Court, 22 August 2017– placement to a psychiatric facility