THIRD SECTION

CASE OF VERSHININ v. RUSSIA

(Application no. 42858/06)

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

20 September 2016

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. 
In the case of Vershinin v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
	Helena Jäderblom, President,
	Dmitry Dedov,
	Branko Lubarda, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 30 August 2016,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1.  The case originated in an application (no. 42858/06) against the Russian Federation lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Russian national, Mr Leonid Vladimirovich Vershinin (“the applicant”), on 12 August 2007.
2.  The applicant was represented by Mr I. Fedotov and Ms L. Stakhiyeva, lawyers practising in Moscow Region and Moscow respectively. The Russian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr G. Matyushkin, the Representative of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights.
3.  The applicant alleged, in particular, that his involuntary placement to a psychiatric facility was unlawful, that the proceedings leading to his hospitalisation were tainted by various procedural defects and that he was unable to initiate release proceedings after hospitalisation.
4.  On 29 January 2013 the above complaints under Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention were communicated to the Government.
THE FACTS
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Radishchevo, Moscow Region.
6.  In 1997, as a result of an accident, the applicant’s house had partially burnt and he had to live in the attic, which was not designed for lodging. The applicant considered that in the circumstances the authorities were under an obligation to provide him with free housing. His civil action against the municipality was dismissed in court.
7.  In January 2006 the applicant lodged complaints with the State Duma and the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation against the judges who had dealt with his civil case. In particular, the applicant, using abusive language, accused them of having taken bribes from the defendant in the amount of USD 30,000, falsification of evidence, terrorism, abuse of power as well as inciting racial and ethnic hatred.
8.  On 13 March 2006 the applicant was arrested under suspicion of having committed defamation of a judge and deliberately false denunciation.
9.  On 14 March 2006 the Meshanskiy District Court of Moscow (Мещанский районный суд г. Москвы) remanded the applicant in custody. His detention on remand was subsequently extended at regular intervals by relevant detention orders.
10.  The investigator ordered the applicant’s psychiatric evaluation in the State Academic Centre for Social and Forensic Psychiatry in Moscow (Государственный научный центр социальной и судебной психиатрии им. В.П. Сербского) (“the Forensic Psychiatry Centre”).
11.  On 20 June 2006 the experts concluded that he showed symptoms of paranoid personality development, was in need of an outpatient supervision and treatment. At the same time they concluded that the applicant was sane, fit to stand trial and highlighted that he had no history of mental disorders.
12.  On 1 August 2006 the prosecution transferred the applicant’s case to the Moscow City Court (Московский городской суд) for examination. The City Court ordered an additional forensic psychiatric examination by the Forensic Psychiatry Centre.
13.  On 21 November 2006 the experts concluded that the applicant was suffering from a chronic mental disorder - paranoid personality development – and needed involuntary treatment in a specialised psychiatric facility. The experts based their assessment, inter alia, on the applicant’s “overvalued” ideas expressed in numerous petitions to various authorities “in a grotesque form”, attempts to “find the truth”, contradictions in his opinions, ambivalence etc. The experts also concluded that the applicant had been insane at the time of the impugned offences and unfit to stand trial.
14.  On an unspecified date the City Court ordered another forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant by the Forensic Psychiatry Centre.
15.  On 7 February 2007 the new report confirmed the findings of the previous report of 21 November 2006. In addition, the experts found that the applicant was a danger to society, stating as follows:
“[T]aking into account that [the applicant] shows, in subjectively significant situations, a tendency towards rapid formation of overvalued ideas which sometimes reach a delusional level, broadening of the circle of persons brought into the focus of these emotions, grave emotional disturbances with non-corrective behavior, rejection of regime requirements, lack of critical attitude to his [emotional] state, dissimulation, [he] is a danger to the society and needs compulsory treatment in a specialised psychiatric hospital”.
16.  On 20 February 2007 the City Court having established the principal facts in respect of the abovementioned offences discontinued criminal proceedings against the applicant due to his insanity. The court referring to the findings and recommendations of the psychiatrists ordered the applicant’s involuntary treatment in a psychiatric hospital.
17.  On 5 April 2007 the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation summarily upheld the lower court’s decision.
18.  In April 2007 the applicant was transferred from a remand prison to a psychiatric facility. In June 2008 he was released from the hospital.
THE LAW
Article I.	I.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
19.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his involuntary placement to a psychiatric facility was unlawful due to the failure of the national authorities to meet the substantive requirements for involuntary hospitalisation. In the relevant part the Article reads as follows:
“1.  Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law...
(e)  the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants...”
20.  The Government contested that argument.
Section 1.01	A.  Admissibility
21.  The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
Section 1.02	B.  Merits
22. The Court reiterates that a person’s physical liberty is a fundamental right protecting the physical security of an individual (see McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, § 30, ECHR 2006‑X). While Article 5 § 1 of the Convention sets out a list of exceptions which might restrict this right (Article 5 § 1 (a) to (f)), these exceptions must be interpreted narrowly, and in no circumstances may they allow arbitrary deprivation of liberty (see Vasileva v. Denmark, no. 52792/99, § 33, 25 September 2003).
23. In the present case, the parties did not dispute that the enforcement of the court order for forensic psychiatric examination of the applicant had involved a deprivation of liberty.
24.  In its Winterwerp judgment (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no. 33), the Court set out three minimum conditions which have to be satisfied for the “detention of a person of unsound mind” to be lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention: except in emergency cases, the individual concerned must be reliably shown to be of unsound mind, that is to say, a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical evidence; the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; and the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder.
25.  The Court considers that in the present case there appears to be no need in detailed examination of whether the first and third Winterwerp condition were satisfied, since the national authorities evidently failed to demonstrate that the applicant’s disorder was of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement.
26.  As it is clear from the forensic examination reports and the relevant judicial decision (see paragraphs 13, 15 and 16 above) the conclusion that the applicant presents a danger to society and the recommendation for involuntary hospitalization were based on the applicant’s rapid formation of overvalued ideas which sometimes reach a delusional level, “grotesque form” of his complaints, attempts to “find the truth”, contradictions in his opinions, ambivalence, lack of critical attitude to his emotional state etc. While the Court acknowledges that these aspects of the applicant’s mental health and behavior might have justified the need for some form of specialised treatment, they fail to convincingly demonstrate that the applicant presented any danger and that his mental disorder was of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement.
27.  The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the national authorities did not meet the Convention requirements in authorising the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation.
28.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Article II.	II.  ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 5 § 4 AND 6 OF THE CONVENTION
29.  The applicant further complained under Articles 5 § 4 and 6 of the Convention about procedural defects in the proceedings leading to his hospitalisation and inability to initiate release proceedings.
30.  The Government contested these arguments.
31.  Having regard to its above finding under Article 5 § 1, the Court considers that it is not necessary to examine the applicant’s further complaints under Articles 5 § 4 and 6 of the Convention
Article III.	III.  OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
32.  Lastly, the applicant lodged complaints under Articles 3, 5, 6 and 13 of the Convention concerning various alleged violations of his rights. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that these complaints must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1, 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
Article IV.	IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
33.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
Section 4.01	A.  Damage
34.  The applicant claimed 38,430 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and EUR 250,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
35.  The Government considered these amounts ungrounded and excessive.
36.  The Court does not discern any causal link between the violation found and the claimed pecuniary damage; it therefore rejects this claim. On the other hand, having regard to the circumstances of the present case and acting on the equitable basis it awards the applicant EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
Section 4.02	B.  Costs and expenses
37.  The applicant also claimed EUR 780 for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
38.  The Government contended that no such award shall be made.
39.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 780 covering costs for the proceedings before the Court.
Section 4.03	C.  Default interest
40.  The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1.  Declares the complaints under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 and Article 6 of the Convention concerning unlawfulness of involuntary hospitalisation, procedural defects in the proceedings leading to the hospitalisation and inability to initiate release proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;

2.  Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention;

3.  Holds that there is no need to examine the complaints under Articles 5 § 4 and 6 of the Convention;

4.  Holds
(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i)  EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii)  EUR 780 (seven hundred eighty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5.  Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 September 2016, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
	Fatoş Aracı	Helena Jäderblom
	Deputy Registrar	President