CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sE356FED4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s35DD8131 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s781AA018 { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s9B44BFC3 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 22 March 2021 SECOND SECTION Application no. 23903/20 E.S. against Finland lodged on 12 June 2020 communicated on 3 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the forced medication of the applicant in a mental hospital and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. The applicant invokes Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. The applicant was admitted to a mental hospital on 17 January 2020 and has since then been forcibly medicated. The forced medication continued when the applicant was transferred to another mental hospital. She complained about the forced medication to the Administrative Court which decided on 13 March 2020 to dismiss her appeal without examining the merits since forced medication did not fall within its area of competence. On 18 May 2020 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. The applicant then requested the District Court to prohibit the forced medication but on 25 May 2020 the District Court held that it was clearly a matter of administrative judicial procedure and could not be decided by the District Court. On 14 April 2020 the applicant’s admission to a mental hospital was prolonged. This decision was confirmed by the Administrative Court on 1   June 2020 when it also dismissed, for the second time, the applicant’s request to stop the forced medication without examining the merits. At the time of the lodging of her application with the Court, the applicant was still hospitalised. Her application does not concern the involuntary admission to a mental hospital but only her forced medication there.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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, as far as her forced medication is concerned? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   2.     Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?