The ECtHR has ruled that Ukraine has violated Article 3, 5 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in their treatment of a Ukrainian national as national courts subjected the national to compulsory psychiatric hospitalisation in unsatisfactory conditions.
The applicant in this case is a Ukrainian national living in Ukraine. In December 2011, the applicant was arrested within the home of an acquaintance, he was found in a state of severe emotional distress and alcohol intoxication, covered in blood and with physical injuries. He was charged and convicted with the attempted murder of the acquaintance. The police took him for a psychiatric examination, resulting in a report that the applicant had not previously suffered from, nor was he currently suffering from any mental illnesses, but concluding that he needed compulsory hospitalisation in a psychiatric hospital for some time. Despite being convicted of attempted murder he was declared exempt from criminal responsibility on the basis of his mental state at the time.
In December 2012, the applicant was transferred from a detention facility to a high security psychiatric hospital and was later diagnosed with organic personality disorder. On three further occasions the hospital recommended that his compulsory treatment continue, with the Court approving the order each time, without the applicant present. The applicant was compulsorily treated with several drugs and alleged that the conditions within the detention facility were unsatisfactory, with sever overcrowding, limited access to toilets, and being allowed to shower only once a week.
In October 2014, the District Court refused to allow the continued application of coercive medical measures and the applicant was discharged that month. The applicant subsequently brought a civil claim against the hospital which was partly successful.
In early October 2014, the District Court refused to allow the continued application of compulsory medical measures, the applicant was subsequently discharged at the end of the month. The applicant brought a civil claim against the hospital which was only partly successful. The applicant then brought proceedings to the European Court of Human Rights relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). The applicant alleged his confinement was contrary to the law and that he had been forcibly administered neuroleptics without medical necessity, that he had been held in inappropriate conditions and that he did not have a chance to challenge his continued psychiatric confinement.
The court found that the applicants continued psychiatric detention in the hospital after the termination of coercive medical measures by a court had been unlawful, it found that the hearings on the continuation of his compulsory medical treatment failed to meet the basic requirements of justice. The court also found that the applicant had been held in overcrowded inadequate conditions and he had been not been given the opportunity to challenge the necessity of the compulsory treatment. The courts ruled a violation of Article 5 , Article 3 and 13.
Click here to read the full case.