CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s15B74CEF { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7FAB69C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#0000ff } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s1ED9948 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 789 22.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Chamber judgment [1] Trajče Stojanovski v. “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (application no. 1431/03 )   CONTINUED CONFINEMENT IN A PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL UNJUSTIFIED   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 1,500   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,540 for costs and expenses, less EUR   850 paid by the Council of Europe in legal aid. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Trajče   Stojanovski, is a national of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” who was born in 1973 and lives in Štip.   In July 1998 the domestic court ordered that the applicant, who was deaf and mute, be detained indefinitely for compulsory psychiatric treatment in a closed medical institution. This measure was applied as a result of him having knocked down in October 2003 a person who quarrelled with his father in a court building. The person he hit sustained severe head injuries and died a few days later. The court found that the applicant was “slightly mentally retarded” and considered aggressive and a danger to the public. Two medical reports were drawn up   confirming that the applicant was mentally ill and needed medical treatment in a specialised psychiatric hospital.   On two occasions, in October 1999 and in April 2003, the hospital in which Mr   Stojanovski was interned requested the domestic court to release him on condition that he underwent compulsory psychiatric treatment. The hospital considered that he had demonstrated good behaviour, had established and maintained good relationships with the staff and other patients, and there had not been any neurotic or psychiatric disorder since his confinement. The hospital’s request was dismissed by the court both times. The court relied on reports by the police which indicated that the applicant had left the hospital several times and his visits to his village had been perceived as a threat by other villagers.   The applicant’s appeal against the second court’s decision was dismissed in April 2004; the court stated that the hospital’s proposal was irrelevant as it was not binding on it.   In November 2008 the hospital applied again, unsuccessfully, to have the applicant conditionally released from confinement, his legal capacity removed and a guardian appointed to him. The court found no one suitable to be appointed as the applicant’s guardian. No information was provided to the Court whether the applicant appealed against that decision.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 5 § 1, Mr   Stojanovski complained that his continued confinement in the hospital had been unlawful since the courts had wrongly based their decisions on police reports instead of on the findings of the hospital.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18   December 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President, Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monaco), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska («   the former Yuigoslav Republic of Macedonia   »), judges , and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that the 1998 confinement order was issued by a court. Consequently, the applicant’s initial deprivation of liberty had to be regarded as lawful detention. However, the particular circumstances of this case, and especially the reasons which the domestic courts had advanced for the applicant’s continued detention, had not been sufficient to justify it .   In particular, the Court observed that the hospital’s 2003 request had been made with a view to securing the applicant’s conditional release since, in its view, his mental disorder no longer required his confinement. The domestic courts, however, had dismissed this request on the basis of information provided by the police regarding the applicant’s behaviour outside the hospital and the local inhabitants’ perception of him. The Court found that the 2003 review of the applicant’s state had not revealed any objective sign that he presented a danger to the community. The domestic court had relied solely on the perceived fears of the villagers. There had been no evidence before the courts of a risk that the applicant would reoffend if released. Instead, Mr   Stojanovski had been described by the hospital as cooperative, having regularly received his mild therapy.   The Court therefore found that the applicant’s mental disorder had not been of the kind or degree to justify his continued compulsory confinement. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5   §   1   (e).     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.