CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 novembre 2023

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 December 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 49873/22 Marina KHUTSISHVILI against Georgia lodged on 17 October 2022 communicated on 20 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s involuntary confinement in a psychiatric hospital. The Tbilisi Court of Appeal declared the initial decision on her confinement unlawful and ordered the applicant’s immediate discharge. She did not, however, receive any compensation as the civil courts conducted their own assessment of the circumstances of the confinement and refused her claim. The applicant alleges that her confinement and forced psychiatric treatment in a psychiatric hospital caused her severe mental suffering amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention taken separately or in conjunction with Article 14. She further complains under Article 5 of the Convention taken separately or in conjunction with Article 14 about the unlawful character and unjustified nature of her compulsory detention and about the inability to obtain compensation. The applicant also complains under Article 8 of the Convention, alleging that her experience of involuntary confinement and treatment breached her physical and psychological integrity.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was her detention in the psychiatric hospital ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (see N. v.   Romania , no. 59152/08, §§ 141-147, 28 November 2017, and Ilnseher v.   Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 126-138, 4 December 2018)?   2.     Was the applicant’s detention in the psychiatric hospital duly justified for the purpose of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention (see N. v. Romania , §   151, cited above)?   3.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for her detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1 (e), as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?   4.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of her involuntary placement and treatment in a psychiatric hospital?