European Court of Human Rights
3 July 2012
Facts
The applicant was arrested in connection with criminal proceedings that had been brought against her. The court ordered the applicant's transfer to a mental health care institution, where a doctor concluded that she suffered from a delusional disorder and met the criteria for involuntary confinement. The Board for Forensic Psychiatry of the National Authority for Medico-Legal Affairs ordered the applicant's involuntary treatment. She was released from the hospital only a year later. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged her confinement and involuntary treatment before the domestic authorities.
Complaint
The applicant complained that her right to liberty had been breached in that she had been unlawfully confined to a mental hospital, though she had not needed involuntary care. Also, she complained that she had been subjected to the forced administration of medication in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
Court's ruling
The Court, firstly, pointed out that for involuntary placement not to be unlawful, it must be applied according to national law. Namely, the grounds for such placement and the proper procedure must be prescribed by law. Moreover, the national law must conform with the requirements of the Convention.
Secondly, the Court noted that the involuntary placement must not be arbitrary. Although there is no general definition what arbitrary means, there are certain developed principles that help to assess arbitrariness. They are as follows:
- Despite complying with the letter of national law, there must not be an element of bad faith deception on the part of the authorities.
- Both the order to detain and the execution of the detention must genuinely conform to the purpose of the restrictions permitted by those established by the Convention.
- There must in addition be some relationship between the ground relied on for the permitted deprivation of liberty and the place and conditions of detention.
- It must reliably be shown that the person is of unsound mind, namely, true mental disorder must be established before competent authority based on objective medical evidence
- The mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement
- The validity of continued confinement must depend upon the persistence of such a disorder
The Court reiterated that a medical intervention without the consent of the patient interfered with the patient’s private life. This interference could be considered justified only if it had been prescribed by law, it had a legitimate aim and it was necessary to achieve this aim. Moreover, the measures taken to achieve this aim must be proportional.
The Court found that in the case in issue, the basis for forced administration of medication could be found in Finnish law. However, the regulation lacked certain quality to be considered ‘law’ by the Court. Specifically, in the context of forced administration of medication, domestic law had to provide some protection for the individual against arbitrary interference with his or her rights. As the doctors could decide to treat the applicant without her consent or consent of her relatives, as well as there was no judicial review of the decisions of the doctors available to the applicant, the Court found that the Finnish regulation did not constitute a law in the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention. It could not be said that the interference with the applicant’s rights was prescribed by law. Thus, the Court ruled that there has been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.