25 Oct Forced psychiatric treatment and confinement in a psychiatric hospital was not in accordance with the Convention

In the case of R.D. and I.M.D. v. Romania (application no. 35402/14, 12.10.2021) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private life).

The case concerned the applicants’ non-voluntary confinement in a psychiatric hospital for the purpose of compelling them to undergo medical treatment, and the obligation to follow that treatment. 

The Court noted that the relevant psychiatric forensic medical reports in respect of the applicants had been prepared on 4 October 2011, that is, more than three years before the measure ordering their placement in a psychiatric hospital. In the Court’s opinion, the lack of a recent medical assessment was sufficient to conclude that the applicants’ placement had not been lawful under the Convention and therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 §  1 of  the Convention.

The Court reiterated that the forced administration of medication represented a serious interference with a person’s physical integrity and had accordingly to be based on a “law” which guaranteed proper safeguards against arbitrariness. The Court noted that the confinement measure imposed on the applicants by the judgment of 10 November 2014 had been based on the provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that it had therefore had a basis in Romanian law. However, the Court noted that none of the relevant legal provisions in this case set out the regime applicable to the effective medical treatment of mental illness. The texts did not regulate the framework within which individuals who were subject to a security measure were to be cared for in psychiatric hospitals, did not specify who was entitled to decide on the appropriate treatment and did not define the manner in which treatment was to be administered, particularly where a patient did not wish to accept the prescribed treatment. Furthermore, these texts did not indicate that it was possible to lodge an appeal against a doctor’s decision regarding the medication to be administered. In those circumstances, the Court noted that the applicants did not have any remedy available whereby they could require a court to rule on the lawfulness, including the proportionality, of the forced administration of medication, or to have it discontinued. 

Reference from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights