CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 avril 2010

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sC9AE5FA8 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .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 } 322 20.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] C.B. v. Romania (application no. 21207/03)   UNLAWFUL PSYCHIATRIC DETENTION OF A MAN CHARGED WITH MALICIOUSLY ACCUSING A POLICE OFFICER   Violation of Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, C.B., is a Romanian national who was born in 1960 and lives in Bucharest. His mother lived in the village of Podenii Noi (county of Prahova). He intervened on her behalf by means of numerous criminal complaints alleging theft and other court actions against individual third parties and agents of the State, including the officer in charge of Podenii Noi police station. In October 2001 the latter lodged a criminal complaint against C.B. for malicious accusation, and proceedings were started on 3 September 2002.   On 4 September 2002 at 6.30 a.m. police officers entered C.B.’s home by force and arrested him. They were acting on an order issued by the public prosecutor’s office the previous day in the context of the proceedings for malicious accusation, which stated that C.B. was to be compulsorily detained “until an expert assessment could be carried out by Voila psychiatric hospital”. The order, which was based on a certificate purportedly issued by C.B.’s “family doctor” stating that the applicant suffered from schizophrenia, concluded that doubts existed as to C.B.’s state of mental health at the time of the events being investigated. C.B. was detained for 14 days on a maximum-security ward in Obregia psychiatric hospital in Bucharest, where doctors found no obvious signs of any psychological disorder. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint against his compulsory detention. On 24   April 2003 the public prosecutor’s office returned the complaint to the applicant on the ground that he had already been committed for trial (see below) and would be able to assert his rights before the trial court.   C.B. was committed to stand trial on 9 December 2002. After a first conviction was quashed because of a procedural defect, the applicant was again convicted on 8 July 2004 by the Ploieşti District Court before eventually being acquitted on 4 November 2004 by the Ploieşti Court of Appeal. The latter noted that, in taking action lawfully on his mother’s behalf, the applicant had simply been exercising his rights. It further observed that the medical certificate issued by C.B.’s “family doctor”, to which the public prosecutor had referred in ordering the applicant’s detention, had in fact come from a doctor who had never seen or examined the applicant.   C.B., who was studying law at the relevant time, was obliged to sit his degree examinations in 2004 instead of 2003 owing to these events.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4, C.B. complained that his psychiatric detention had been unlawful; in particular, it had been arbitrary as there had been no medical opinion stating that it was necessary. He further complained of the absence of any review of its lawfulness. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant also complained of the circumstances of his arrest on 4 September 2002.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 October 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Ann Power (Ireland), judges ,   and Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Complaint concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the applicant’s detention (Article 5 § 1 (e))   The Court reiterated first of all that, as a rule, for the detention of a “person of unsound mind” to be considered lawful, an expert had to have found the person concerned to be of unsound mind prior to his arrest, and the disorder had to be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory detention. That being said, in urgent cases (in particular where the person was arrested for violent behaviour), it might be acceptable, on an exceptional basis, for an expert opinion to be obtained immediately after the arrest. Lastly, as deprivation of liberty was a very serious measure, it had to be shown that it had been absolutely necessary in the circumstances and that other less severe measures would not have been sufficient.   In assessing whether those requirements had been satisfied in C.B.’s case, the Court took particular account of the following factors. First of all, it observed that the applicant’s compulsory detention had not been based on the prior opinion of a psychiatrist, but simply on the investigators’ doubts as to his state of mental health and on a medical certificate produced by a general practitioner who had never seen or examined the applicant. As the applicant had not been accused of any violent or dangerous behaviour and did not have a history of psychiatric problems, his detention had quite clearly not been justified on urgent grounds either. Furthermore, the Government had offered no explanation as to why other measures, less severe than detention in a maximum-security ward, had not been considered or, if they had, why they had been deemed insufficient. The Court noted in that regard that there was nothing in the case file to indicate that the applicant would have refused to undergo a psychiatric assessment of his own free will. Finally, the Court found most regrettable the clearly disproportionate manner in which the detention measure had been carried out (arrest using force in the small hours of the morning at C.B.’s home), particularly in view of the considerations outlined above.   Accordingly, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (e).   Complaint concerning the alleged failure to review the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention (Article 5 § 4)   In the Court’s view, the Government had not demonstrated that the applicant had had any remedy available to him by which to challenge the public prosecutor’s decision ordering his detention. The Court also observed that C.B.’s complaint concerning his detention had been returned to him by the public prosecutor’s office on the ground that he had already been committed for trial and could assert his rights before the trial court. Ultimately, the applicant’s detention had not been the subject of any review by the courts.   The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   Complaints concerning the circumstances of the applicant’s arrest (Articles 3 and 8)   In view of its findings in relation to Article 5 §§ 1 (e) and 4, the Court considered it unnecessary to examine these complaints separately.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   C.B. claimed compensation for the suffering caused in particular by his arrest and detention, the deferral of his law degree examinations and the fact that his legal career had been put in jeopardy. The Court ruled that Romania was to pay the applicant 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of all the damage he had sustained on account of the violations found.   *** The judgment is available only in French. 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 Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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.