CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 23 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 11 December 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23668/22 Oliver Florin STAN against Romania lodged on 3 May 2022 communicated on 23 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s extended medical detention despite medical expert opinions recommending release and despite his family offering conditions for him to be released into their care. It also concerns the length of the court proceedings concerning extension of his medical detention. The applicant tried to detonate a bomb in the Iaşi Technical University building. He was placed in medical detention on 1   August 2013, by decision of the Iaşi Court of Appeal, on the grounds that a forensic psychiatric evaluation found he lacked criminal responsibility because of mental illness. Since 8 October 2019 all medical expert reports concluded that the applicant’s condition had improved and recommend his release. However, his medical detention was repeatedly extended by the court. The applicant complains, under Article 5 § 1 (e), that the extension of his medical detention was arbitrary and ordered despite his condition no longer qualifying for that security measure. Under Article 5 § 4 he also complains about the length of the proceedings concerning the extension of his detention, lodged by the office for the execution of decisions attached to the Iaşi District Court on 27 January 2021 and finalised by a decision of 22 December 2021 of the Iaşi County Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the continued deprivation of liberty in question necessary and free from arbitrariness, having regard to the applicant’s health (see S., V. and A. v.   Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, §   76-77, 22 October 2018; Enhorn v.   Sweden , no.   56529/00, §§ 36 and 41-43, ECHR 2005-I; Stanev v.   Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, §   145, ECHR 2012; and N. v. Romania , no.   59152/08, §§ 141-145, 28 November 2017)?   2.     When ordering the extension of the applicant’s medical detention, did the courts conduct a thorough assessment and did they properly take into account the expert recommendations and the alternative measures proposed therein (see N. v. Romania , cited above, §§ 146 and 163)?   3.     Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, which were finalised by decision of 22 December 2021 of the Iaşi County Court, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention (see Ilnseher v.   Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§   251-256, 4 December 2018; and Khokhlov v. Cyprus , no. 53114/20, § 77, 13 June 2023 with further references)?