CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 29 September 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 4218/20 A.Z. against Greece lodged on 10 January 2020 communicated on 10 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s involuntary confinement in a psychiatric hospital. Pursuant to order no.   5561 of 3   June 2019 of the Tripoli Public Prosecutor, the applicant was examined by two psychiatrists, who concluded that the applicant suffered from a mental condition, and he should be hospitalised in order to avoid the deterioration of his condition. On 4   June   2019 the applicant was admitted to the psychiatric ward of Tripoli Hospital and two days later, the Public Prosecutor requested the applicant’s involuntary confinement to a psychiatric hospital. The request was initially scheduled to be heard by the competent court on 17   June 2019, but the hearing was cancelled as it was a public holiday. It was finally heard on 10 July 2019 without the applicant being present or represented. By decision no. 69/2019 of 12 July 2019, the One-Member Tripoli Court of First Instance ordered the applicant’s stay in the psychiatric ward of the hospital. The applicant stayed confined until 3 September 2019. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention that the procedure described in national legislation was not observed rendering his detention unlawful. In particular, the applicant complains that his involuntary confinement took place without prior request from an immediate family member, that he was admitted to the hospital on 4 June 2019 while the order of the Public Prosecutor was dated 6 June 2019, that he was not informed about his right to lodge a remedy against his confinement in the psychiatric hospital, that the application of the Public Prosecutor concerning the applicant’s involuntary confinement was heard by the competent court thirty ‑ four days after its submission instead of the ten-day time-limit prescribed in Article 96 of Law no. 2071/1992 and that he was not legally served of the invitation to appear before that court resulting in him being absent from the hearing. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention? In particular, was his detention in the psychiatric hospital ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (see   N.   v.   Romania , no. 59152/08, §§ 141-47, 28 November 2017, 28   November 2017, M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 75450/12, §§ 139-47, 19   February 2015, Venios v. Greece , no. 33055/08, 5 July 2011, and Karamanof   v.   Greece , no.   46372/09, 26 July 2011)?