CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 59063/21 M.P. against Lithuania lodged on 18 November 2021 communicated on 16 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention on remand, his involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation and his allegations of ill-treatment in detention. In April 2020 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of theft and destruction of property. He was detained on remand from 4 May to 2 July 2020 at a regular detention facility. During the criminal proceedings it was established that he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. A psychiatrist examined the applicant and determined that, at the time when the alleged criminal offences had been committed, he had been unable to understand and control his actions. Moreover, his behaviour was unpredictable and he was potentially dangerous to himself and others. Relying on those grounds, the court ordered that he should be placed at a psychiatric hospital for three months. The applicant was hospitalised on 2   July 2020. On 1 October 2020 the court found that his condition had not improved and extended the hospitalisation for a further three months. On 14 December 2020 the applicant was convicted of the charges against him. The court found that it had been credibly established that he was unable to understand and control his actions and ordered his psychiatric hospitalisation. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, in which he asked to be allowed to follow outpatient psychiatric treatment. However, on 16   March 2021 the appellate court dismissed the appeal and held that the involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation of the applicant was justified in view of his mental condition. The court relied on psychiatric examinations which had been carried out in May and June 2020 and the testimonies of experts given before the first ‑ instance court. The applicant was released from the psychiatric hospital on 21   September 2021, on the grounds that his mental health had improved sufficiently for him to follow outpatient treatment. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that it was unlawful to detain him on remand at a regular detention facility in view of the fact that he could not be held criminally responsible for his actions. Relying on the same provision, he also complains that the involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation was not justified during the entirety of its duration because his mental condition was not re-assessed at regular intervals, and in particular, it was not demonstrated that it had been necessary to keep him hospitalised after 16   March 2021. Lastly, he complains under Article 3 of the Convention that on 24   June 2020, while he was detained at Pravieniškės Correctional Facility, he was beaten up by its staff. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 §   1 of the Convention, with regard to his complaint concerning the alleged ill-treatment during the detention on remand?   2.     If the above question is answered in the affirmative, was the applicant subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, during his detention on remand (see Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no.   23380/09, §§ 81-90, ECHR 2015, and the cases cited therein)?   3.     Did the applicant’s detention on remand at a regular detention facility from 4 May to 2   July 2020 comply with the requirements of lawfulness and protection from arbitrariness under Article 5 §   1 of the Convention in view of his state of health (see Ilnseher v.   Germany [GC], nos.   10211/12 and   27505/14, §§ 135-41, 4   December 2018)?   4.     Did the involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation of the applicant from 2   July 2020 to 21   September 2021 comply with Article   5   §   1   (e) of the Convention? In particular, was it established that the grounds for keeping the applicant hospitalised persisted throughout that entire period (see Ilnseher , cited above, § 134, and Kadusic v. Switzerland , no. 43977/13, §   44, 9   January 2018)?