CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 septembre 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s906CA806 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:9pt } .sBACB86A2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 623 02.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Shopov v. Bulgaria (application no. 11373/04)     compulsory psychiatric treatment for more than five years interfered with Applicant’s private life   Unanimously   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) Violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Ruslan Shopov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Sofia.   In December 2002, following an application by the applicant’s brother on the recommendation of a psychiatrist, the district prosecutor ordered the applicant’s committal to a psychiatric hospital for an expert examination of whether he required compulsory medical treatment under the Public Health Act. In a judgment of 3 April 2003 the District Court decided to admit the applicant to a psychiatric hospital on the ground that, according to the expert report, there was a risk that his health might deteriorate.   Mr Shopov appealed against that judgment, arguing that the proceedings had not been fair and that he did not require psychiatric treatment. In a judgment of 9 October 2003 Sofia City Court, finding that the applicant did not pose any danger to others, that the only risk to his health stemmed from his refusal to undergo treatment and that he could be given medical treatment outside a hospital environment, replaced the order for his treatment in hospital with compulsory medical treatment in an outpatient psychiatric clinic.   Since Mr Shopov refused to undergo the treatment, he was arrested by the police at his home on 1 December 2003 on the orders of the prosecutor, before being handcuffed and forcibly escorted to the psychiatric hospital. He was given medical treatment and left the hospital in late December. Until September 2009 the applicant periodically attended the outpatient clinic to undergo compulsory psychiatric treatment, in accordance with the judgment of 9 October 2003.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 5 § 1, the applicant complained that his admission to the psychiatric hospital had unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived him of his liberty. Under Article   8, he complained that for more than five years he had been forced to undergo psychiatric treatment at the outpatient clinic.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 19 March 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine), Judges , Pavlina Panova (Bulgaria), ad hoc Judge, and also Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 1   The applicant’s admission to the psychiatric hospital against his will from 1 to 29   December   2003 had been ordered by the public prosecutor, although Sofia City Court had ruled that the treatment was to be provided in an outpatient clinic. The public prosecutor and the police had therefore overstepped the limits of that court’s judgment and the applicant’s admission to the psychiatric hospital had been unlawful, in breach of Article   5   §   1.   Article 8   The continuing interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life resulting from his treatment against his will had had a basis in law, namely the 1973 Public Health Act, which provided for the possibility of compulsory psychiatric treatment where there was a risk of serious deterioration of the health of the person concerned. However, in Mr   Shopov’s case there had been no regular judicial review of the need to continue the treatment, as required by the relevant provision of that Act. The Court found that the applicant’s compulsory treatment had been ordered for an indefinite period.   Accordingly, the continuation of the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment for more than five years had not been in accordance with Bulgarian law, especially as there was no indication that Mr Shopov could have challenged the continuation of the treatment, at least in the period before the entry into force of the 2005 Act repealing the 1973 Public Health Act. The Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 8.   Article 41   By way of just satisfaction, the Court held that Bulgaria was to pay Mr Shopov 5,200 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 150 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on its Internet site . To receive the Court’s press releases, you can subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Emma Hellyer (telephone: +33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 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 Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.