CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 novembre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 102 November 2007 Mocarska v. Poland - 26917/05 Judgment 6.11.2007 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-1-e Persons of unsound mind Prolonged detention in an ordinary remand centre pending admission to a psychiatric hospital: violation   Facts : In May 2005, following a knife attack on her sister, the applicant was arrested, charged with domestic violence and admitted to a detention centre. In October 2005, referring to the expert's opinion, a district court discontinued the proceedings against her on the ground that she could not be held criminally responsible, ordered her placement in a psychiatric hospital and prolonged her detention. The selected psychiatric hospital was unable to admit the applicant immediately due to a lack of resources and availability. In June 2006 the applicant was finally transferred from the detention centre to the hospital. Law : The applicant's detention after the discontinuation of the proceedings against her had a legal basis in domestic law. However, the permissible length of detention pending transfer to a psychiatric hospital was not specified in any statutory or other provision. The Court had therefore to determine whether the continuation of provisional detention for eight months could be regarded as lawful. The domestic court had asked the psychiatric commission to indicate a hospital to which the applicant could be transferred only two months after the proceedings had been discontinued. It had taken the commission two more months to indicate a hospital for the applicant. Lastly, the applicant had had to wait more than three months before her admission to that hospital. During that time she had been detained in a regular detention centre. The Court accepted the Government's argument that it would be unrealistic and too rigid an approach to expect the authorities to ensure that a place was immediately available in a selected psychiatric hospital. However, an eight-month delay in the admission of the applicant to a psychiatric hospital and the beginning of her treatment had been obviously harmful to her and could not be regarded as acceptable. Therefore, a reasonable balance had not been struck between the competing interests. To hold otherwise would entail a serious weakening of the fundamental right to liberty to the detriment of the person concerned and thus impair the very essence of the right protected by Article 5 of the Convention. Conclusion : violation(unanimously).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes