CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 février 2024

.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 26 February 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 32654/18 Piotr PĘDRAK against Poland lodged on 3 July 2018 communicated on 9 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the applicant’s placement in a mental hospital against his will. On 7 December 2016 the applicant was refused the possibility to leave a mental hospital to which he had been admitted with his consent two days earlier. On 21 December 2016 the first instance court established that the refusal was justified. On 23 June 2017 the second instance court dismissed the appeal of the applicant. The courts established that the applicant had abused alcohol and had suicidal ideation, which justified holding him in the hospital against his will. On 10 January 2018 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. The applicant complains that the proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention was examined were unfair because a) the expert appointed by the first instance court to assess the necessity of his continuing placement in the hospital was that hospital’s employee and subordinate to the doctor who had decided on his placement; b) the expert’s opinion was not served on him and he could not therefore comment on its content; c) neither him nor his lawyer could attend the hearing of the first instance court; d) he was not informed of his rights in good time, in particular of the right to have an attorney; e) his attorney was not allowed to attend the meeting during which he was examined by the expert appointed by the second instance court and f) the second instance court copied the expert’s opinion into the judgment and presented it as its own conclusions. He relies on Article 6 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his mandatory confinement in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, in particular in view of his claims that a) relevant expert’s opinion had not been served on him and he could not comment on it, b) he had not been informed in due time of his rights, in particular of the right to have an attorney, c) neither him nor his lawyer could attend the hearing before the first instance court, d) his lawyer had not been allowed to attend the meeting during which the applicant was examined by the expert appointed by the second instance court and e) the second instance court copied the expert’s opinion into the judgment and presented it as its own conclusions ? (see Černàk v. Slovakia , no. 36997/08, 17 January 2013, Kampanis v. Greece , no.   17977/91, 132 July 1995 and G.B. and others v. Turkey , no. 4633/15, 17   October 2015)   2.     Was Article 6 § 1, under its civil head, applicable to the proceedings in question? If so, has the appointment as expert of the medical specialist employed by the hospital hindered the principle of equality of arms and rendered the proceedings unfair contrary to Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? (see, I.N. v. Ukraine , no. 28472/08, §§ 65-69, 23   June 2016 and Shulepova v.   Russia , no. 34449/03, 11 December 2008)