CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 octobre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 22 October 2020 Published on 9 November 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 10875/19 Ilie RESTANȚIA against Romania lodged on 14 February 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention in a psychiatric facility and the consequences this measure had for the conduct of civil proceedings concerning the property title to his house. A criminal investigation was started against the applicant who had uttered threats against a judge. He was found to have diminished criminal responsibility on account of a mental illness. Consequently, he was placed in a psychiatric hospital for an indefinite period of time, by order of the Sibiu District Court (decision no. 503 of 10 August 2011, file no.   10446/306/2011). The measure was taken under Article 114 of the Criminal Code in force at that time, which regulated the security measure of admission into a medical facility of a mentally ill perpetrator. The applicant complains about his admission to the psychiatric hospital, which he considers to be both unlawful and unjustified. He also explains that he was unable to appeal against the decision of 10 August 2011 because he was immediately admitted to the psychiatric hospital. He further complains that his continued detention is not justified by the court’s ruling on the matter (in particular Bihor County Court, decision no.   78/DCP/2019 of 23 July 2019, file no. 1576/187/2019). The applicant also complains that because of his admission to the hospital, he was unable to participate in the appeal proceedings against decision no. 3139 of 19 April 2011 of the Sibiu District Court (file no.   505/206/2010) whereby he lost ownership of his home. Moreover, he alleges that he only received a copy of the decision no. 3139 on 11   October 2018. In his application form, the applicant, however, only expressly refers to Article 6 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in so far as the decision no.   503 of 10 August 2011 and the decision no. 3139 of 19 April 2011 are concerned?   2.     Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article   35 §   1 of the Convention, in so far as the two decisions above mentioned are concerned?   3.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (see, notably, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no.   36760/06, §§   143-47, ECHR 2012)?   4.     Was the applicant’s detention extended “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”? In particular, with regard to the decision no.   78/DCP/2019 of 23 July 2019, file no. 1576/187/2019, was the applicant’s detention in the psychiatric hospital duly justified for the purpose of Article 5 § 1 (e) (see N.   v.   Romania , no. 59152/08, §§ 151 and   163, 28 November 2017, and Stanev , cited above, § 157)?   5.     Did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in so far as he was unable to participate in the appeal proceedings against the decision no. 3139 of 19 April 2011 of the Sibiu District Court (file no. 505/206/2010) concerning the sale of his home (see, mutatis mutandis , Nikolyan v. Armenia , no. 74438/14, §§ 89-93, and 96-97, 3   October 2019, and mutatis mutandis , Stanev , cited above, §§ 229-32, and Nataliya Mikhaylenko v. Ukraine , no. 49069/11, §§ 35-36, 30 May 2013)?   6.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his home, contrary to Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, with regard to the proceedings whereby he lost possession of his home (see, mutatis mutandis , Zehentner v. Austria , no. 20082/02, §§ 58-60 and 64-65, 16 July 2009)?   7.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, in so far as he lost possession of his home in the proceedings conducted before the Sibiu District Court, in file no.   505/206/2010 (see, notably, Zehentner , cited above, §§ 73 and 75)?   8.     The Government are invited to provide documents indicating the applicant’s current situation, notably whether he maintained his legal capacity, and whether his rights and interests are represented by a legal guardian.