CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 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 25 November 2024   THIRD SECTION Application no. 39501/19 Z.Z. against Greece lodged on 23 July 2019 communicated on 8 November 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation. The applicant was diagnosed with a mental health disorder in 2007. She lives with her son, who in 2009 was appointed as her guardian ( δικαστικός συμπαραστάτης ). On 11 January 2019 the applicant was transferred under police custody to the Alexandroupoli University Hospital for examination at the psychiatric clinic as per a prosecutorial order. On 4 March 2019 the Rhodopi prosecutor lodged an involuntary hospitalisation request under Law no. 2071/92, which was rejected on 12 March 2019 by judgment no. 37/2019 of the Rhodopi Court of First Instance. The court held that the prosecutor lacked standing: as the applicant had close relatives who had not demonstrated inaction (her son and legal guardian), only the latter could request the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation. On 25 May 2019 the applicant was discharged. In subsequent guardianship proceedings, the Thrace Court of Appeal by judgment no.   319/2022 found that the applicant’s hospitalisation had not been voluntary. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention on account of her hospitalisation: (a) neither she nor her legal guardian consented to the hospitalisation of 11 January 2019, which had been involuntary, nor received summons in person to the relevant hearing before the Rhodopi Court of First Instance; and (b) the applicant’s discharge occurred more than two months after that court had dismissed the prosecutor’s hospitalisation request. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of her liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 (e) of the Convention (see, for instance, Karamanof v. Greece , no. 46372/09, §§   43 ‑ 47, 26 July 2011, and Venios v. Greece, no. 33055/08, §§ 49-53, 5 July 2011)? In particular, (a) Was her detention in respect of each of the periods complained of ordered and maintained “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”? (b) Was the applicant afforded the necessary procedural safeguards in the proceedings pertaining to her involuntary hospitalisation (see, for instance, M.S. v. Croatia (No. 2) , no. 75450/12, §§ 114-115 and   147, 19 February 2015, and Venios, cited above, § 52)?