Category:ECHR

The cases in this section are not necessarily directly related to mental health law.

The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.

Case and summary	Date added	Categories
Lazariu v Romania 31973/03 [2014] ECHR 1219, [2014] MHLO 139 — Detention in psychiatric hospital breached Article 5(1) and (4).	2014‑12‑31 20:33:35	2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
OG v Latvia 66095/09 [2014] ECHR 989, [2014] MHLO 115 — Involuntary psychiatric hospital admission breached Article 5(1) and (4) in this case.	2014‑12‑30 20:51:25	2014 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
MH v UK 11577/06 [2013] ECHR 1008, [2013] MHLO 94 — (1) The ECtHR considered this case, which involved a patient lacking capacity to apply to the tribunal, in three separate stages: (a) The first 27 days of detention under s2. With some emergency detentions a habeas corpus application might be a sufficient remedy, but with this one it would have been wholly unreasonable to expect such an application. Additionally, it would not have been reasonable to expect her nearest relative via solicitors to request a tribunal reference from the Secretary of State. Therefore, neither the patient nor her nearest relative were able in practice to avail themselves of the normal remedy granted by the 1983 Act because the special safeguards required under Article 5(4) for incompetent mental patients in a position such as hers were lacking. There was a violation of Article 5(4). The necessary special safeguards 'may well include empowering or even requiring some other person or authority to act on the patient’s behalf' (i.e. referring the case to the tribunal). (b) The period between the extension of s2 by s29 displacement proceedings and the tribunal's decision not to discharge. The Secretary of State, in circumstances where refusal would prevent a speedy judicial decision, has no discretion but is under a duty to make a tribunal reference. In this case: (i) there was such a tribunal within a month, which was not an unreasonably long period; and (ii) the fact that there was a tribunal meant that the patient was not a victim of the alleged shortcoming in the mental health system. There was no Article 5 breach. The situation of a patient without a nearest relative willing and able, through solicitors, to seek a reference was raised by the court but not considered. (c) The period between the tribunal decision and the patient's move from hospital. During this period, the legal basis of detention was no longer s29 but was the tribunal's judicial decision not to discharge. A judicial decision does not endure eternally, so a patient detained for an indefinite or lengthy period is subsequently entitled to take proceedings at reasonable intervals, but the four-month period in this case was not sufficient to breach Article 5. (2) No claim for just satisfaction was made so no compensation was ordered. (3) Legal costs were reduced to €5250 from the €5825.06 sought.	2013‑10‑23 23:44:21	2013 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Mihailovs v Latvia 35939/10 [2013] ECHR 65, [2013] MHLO 15 — "The applicant alleged, among other things, that he had been held against his will in a State social care institution for more than ten years, that he could not obtain release, and that he had been fully dependent on his wife, who had been his guardian, had not represented his interests, and had opposed all attempts by him to defend his rights."	2013‑03‑26 21:59:55	2013 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
Lashin v Russia 33117/02 [2013] ECHR 63, [2013] MHLO 14 — "The applicant complained, in particular, about his status as a legally incapacitated person, his non-voluntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital and his inability to marry."	2013‑03‑26 21:53:05	2013 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Other capacity cases, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
Dordevic v Croatia 41526/10 [2012] ECHR 1640, [2012] MHLO 136 — Harassment led to breaches of Article 3 and 8. [Detailed summary available via external link.]	2012‑12‑19 18:57:56	2012 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
X v Finland 34806/04 [2012] ECHR 1371, [2012] MHLO 128 — "The applicant alleged, in particular, under Article 6 of the Convention that she did not receive a fair hearing in the criminal proceedings against her in that she was not given an opportunity to be heard at an oral hearing on the need to appoint a trustee for her for the purpose of those proceedings and that she was not given an opportunity to examine witnesses on her behalf. She also alleged under Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention that she was unnecessarily and unlawfully subjected to involuntary care in a mental institution and to forced administration of medication. She further claimed under Article 13 of the Convention that she did not have an effective remedy to challenge the forced administration of medication." [Detailed summary available via external link.]	2012‑12‑18 20:25:10	2012 cases, Detailed summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
RP v UK 38245/08 [2012] ECHR 1796, [2012] MHLO 102 — The appointment of the Official Solicitor (who decided, against RP's wishes, not to oppose the making of a care order and a placement order) did not breach RP's Article 6 or Article 8 rights.	2012‑10‑13 21:43:31	2012 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Munjaz v UK 2913/06 [2012] ECHR 1704, [2012] MHLO 79 — The applicant, C. Munjaz, is a British national who was born in 1947. Suffering from mental health problems, he has spent a number of periods in prison and hospital. The case concerned Mr Munjaz’s complaint about his placement in seclusion in Ashworth Special hospital (a high security hospital) where he was transferred in March 1994 as a result of his increasingly psychotic, aggressive and violent behaviour. Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), he alleged that Ashworth’s in-hospital policy on seclusion, which had not complied with the Code of Practice under the Mental Health Act, had adversely affected his right to personal development and to establish and develop relationships with the outside world. Further relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), he also claimed that his seclusion had amounted to a further deprivation of his liberty lacking any basis in law and without possibility of bringing an external appeal. No violation of Article 5. No violation of Article 8. [Summary from court press release.]	2012‑08‑19 22:02:39	2012 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Parascineti v Romania 32060/05 [2012] MHLO 59 (ECHR) — The conditions in an overcrowded psychiatric ward with very poor standards of hygiene led to inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of Article 3.	2012‑06‑23 11:47:20	2012 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on MHLO, Miscellaneous cases, Neutral citation unknown or not applicable, Transcript
MS v UK 24527/08 [2012] ECHR 804, [2012] MHLO 46 — MS was taken to a police station under s136 having assaulted his aunt, but the FME assessed him as not fit for interview. The local psychiatric intensive care unit refused to admit him on the basis that he required a medium secure unit but, for various reasons, there was a delay in transferring him there. (1) The delay led to detention beyond the 72-hour limit of s136, but he did not make any claim under Article 5. (2) His claim was instead in negligence and breach of Article 3 and, as the case was summarily dismissed in the domestic proceedings, the Article 3 aspect of the case proceeded to the ECtHR. The ECtHR made no criticism of the initial detention under s136 in a police station, the attitude of the authorities or the material conditions (food and liquid) of detention. It did, however, conclude that - because MS was in a state of great vulnerability throughout his detention, as manifested by the abject condition to which he quickly descended inside his cell, and that he was in dire need of appropriate psychiatric treatment - the conditions which the applicant was required to endure were an affront to human dignity and reached the threshold of degrading treatment for the purposes of Article 3. (3) There was no breach of Article 13 as an appropriate remedy was available in domestic law, notwithstanding the fact that he had been unsuccessful. (4) Compensation of €3,000 was awarded.	2012‑05‑05 12:07:15	2012 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
DD v Lithuania 13469/06 [2012] ECHR 254, [2012] MHLO 29 — Breach of Article 5(4) and Article 6(1) in relation to involuntary admission to a psychiatric institution.	2012‑03‑24 14:22:45	2012 cases, Detailed summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Austin v UK 39692/09 [2012] ECHR 459, [2012] MHLO 22 — Kettling did not breach Article 5.	2012‑03‑19 22:51:40	2012 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Stanev v Bulgaria 36760/06 [2012] ECHR 46, [2012] MHLO 1 — (1) The applicant's placement in a social care home for people with mental disorders and his inability to obtain permission to leave the home led to breaches of Article 5(1), (4) and (5). (2) The living conditions in the home led to breaches of Article 3, and of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3. (3) The lack of access to a court to seek release from partial guardianship breached Article 6(1). (4) No separate issue arose under Article 8 so it was unnecessary to examine that complaint. (5) Compensation of €15,000 was awarded.	2012‑01‑17 22:03:51	2012 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Hadzic and Suljic v Bosnia Herzegovina 39446/06 [2011] ECHR 911 — The applicants had been detained for several years in a prison 'Psychiatric Annex' which was an inappropriate institution for the detention of mental health patients, in breach of Article 5(1); the applicants were awarded compensation of €15,000 and €25,000 respectively.	2011‑11‑26 15:17:07	2011 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
S v Estonia 17779/08 [2011] ECHR 1511 — Under domestic law S should have been heard 'promptly' after the county court ruled on her compulsory admission to hospital, but was not heard for 15 days; no adequate justification was given; this was a considerable portion of the three-month admission period; the domestic supreme court noted the procedural violation but offered no redress: overall, there had been a breach of Article 5(1), in that she was not detained in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. Compensation of €5000 was awarded.	2011‑10‑06 21:42:07	2011 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Seal v UK 50330/07 [2010] ECHR 1976 — The claimant issued his claim on the eve of the limitation period without seeking leave under s139; the House of Lords had found that his claim was therefore a nullity. (1) No breach of Article 6 was found because (a) the six-year limitation period pursued a legitimate aim, (b) s139 was to restrict access to the court only where the claim was manifestly unmeritorious, and its general aim of protecting those who exercise powers under that Act, including the police, pursued a legitimate aim, (c) the decision to strike out did not impair the very essence of the applicant's right of access to court and was not disproportionate: he had not explained his delay or failure to seek leave, and should bear the consequences of his own decisions, and in any event could continue his non-MHA claims (2) No breach of Article 6 taken with Article 14 was found because he did not argue it in any substance and, by not having argued it previously, had failed to exhaust domestic remedies.	2010‑12‑09 21:34:34	2010 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
Stojanovski v Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 1431/03 [2009] ECHR 1615 — Breach of Article 5.	2010‑07‑09 21:22:24	2009 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Juncal v UK 32357/09 [2010] ECHR 249 — Lawfulness of detention. Statement of facts and questions to the parties lodged at court.	2010‑03‑02 20:37:47	2010 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
Seal v UK 50330/07 [2009] ECHR 806 — Statement of facts and question lodged with court. Case concerns the procedure under s139 MHA 1983.	2009‑12‑04 21:35:51	2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, Transcript
Hurst v UK 42577/07 [2009] ECHR 1988 — Statement of facts and questions lodged with the court (case relates to Article 2-compliant inquests).	2009‑12‑04 21:05:43	2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Inquest cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Halilovic v Bosnia and Herzegovina 23968/05 [2009] ECHR 1933 — (1) The appellant's detention for 4 years 5 months was pursuant to an administrative decision, as opposed to a decision of the competent civil court as required by the amended domestic legislation, and so breached Article 5(1); compensation of €22,500 was awarded. (2) The Article 3 claim relating to conditions of detention failed.	2009‑12‑04 20:31:52	2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
R (JL) v SSJ [2008] UKHL 68 — The nature of the investigation that must be carried out by the State whenever a prisoner in custody makes an attempt to commit suicide that nearly succeeds and which leaves him with serious injury.	2009‑04‑12 21:29:00	2008 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Wainwright v UK 12350/04 [2006] ECHR 807 — Strip searches of the applicants breached Article 8 due to their manner, but did not reach the minimum level of severity prohibited by Article 3.	2009‑04‑12 20:59:44	2006 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Kucheruk v Ukraine (2007) 2570/04 ECHR 712 — Violations of Article 3, 5(1) and 5(4).	2009‑04‑12 20:51:32	2007 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Khudobin v Russia 59696/00 [2006] ECHR 898 — Lack of medical treatment while detained violated Article 3; lack of relevant and sufficient reasons for pre-trial detention violated Article 5(3); undue delays in considering two separate applications for release violated Article 5(4); appeal court's failure to consider refusal of release breached Article 5(4); court's failure to consider entrapment defence violated Article 6(1); damages of €12,000 awarded	2009‑04‑12 20:45:55	2006 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Kay v UK 17821/91 [1994] ECHR 51 — (1) The recall to hospital without up-to-date objective medical expertise showing that the applicant suffered from a true mental disorder, or that his previous psychopathic disorder persisted - in the absence of any emergency - violated Article 5(1); (2) The subsequent MHRT proceedings were inherently too slow, which breached Article 5(4): the first hearing date offered was five months after referral, and final determination took just over two years.	2009‑04‑11 17:09:30	1994 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Ministry of Justice cases, Transcript
Kay v UK 17821/91 [1993] ECHR 61 — The applicant's complaints under Article 5(1) (recall to hospital without medical evidence) and Article 5(4) (delay in Tribunal proceedings) were admissible.	2009‑04‑11 17:09:29	1993 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
X v UK 7215/75 [1981] ECHR 6 — (1) Under Article 5(1), the recall to hospital without the usual Winterwerp guarantees was lawful as it was an emergency; the further detention followed examination by the RMO so was also lawful; (2) Habeas corpus proceedings were inadequate for Article 5(4) purposes; the other legal machinery did not remedy this breach, in particular because the MHRT could not order discharge of restricted patients.	2009‑04‑10 23:00:44	1981 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Powers, Transcript
X v UK 7215/75 [1982] ECHR 8 — (1) No compensation awarded under Article 40; (2) Note taken of agreement relating to costs; (3) Note taken of proposed law reform (MHRT to be able to discharge restricted patients, and legal aid to cover representation).	2009‑04‑10 23:00:32	1982 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Wilkinson v UK 14659/02 [2006] ECHR 1171 — The applicant's complaints were all declared inadmissible. He had complained that: (1) medical treatment against his will was a breach of the negative obligations under Articles 3 and 8; (2) the authorities failed in their positive obligation under Articles 3 and 8 to provide suitable safeguards against the imposition of treatment that would violate his rights, in particular that the authorities should have sought approval from a court before imposing treatment and that he should have been able to bring a challenge against the treatment, before it took place, in a court which would have been able to provide a suitable level of review; (3) the inability to have a determination of his ‘civil right’ to autonomy in a court that would have provided a review on the merits was a violation of Article 6; (4) the lack of effective remedy was a breach of Article 13; (5) discrimination on the basis of his status as a detained patient was a breach of Article 14.	2009‑04‑10 22:17:59	2006 cases, Brief summary, Challenges to compulsory treatment, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Warren v UK 36982/97 [1999] ECHR 186 — Detention under the MHA following an order made by a criminal court should be considered under Art 5(1)(e) ECHR. [MHLR.]	2009‑04‑10 22:07:07	1999 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Unimportant cases, Judgment available on Bailii
Wall v Sweden 41403/98 [1997] ECHR 201 — The detention of an alcoholic under Article 5(1)(e) did not breach Article 5(1): the authorities continuously considered less severe measures, they strictly scrutinised the necessity for subjecting the applicant to compulsory care, and the total length of the applicant’s detention was not extended beyond a period reasonable to the aim pursued by domestic law, namely to motivate the applicant in such a way that he become capable of voluntary participation in continuing treatment and capable of receiving support in order to discontinue his abuse.	2009‑04‑10 21:58:49	1997 cases, Detailed summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Varbanov v Bulgaria 31365/96 [2000] ECHR 457 — (1) Violation of Article 5(1): Deprivation of liberty was not justified under Art 5(1)(e) and had no basis in domestic law which, moreover, did not provide the required protection against arbitrariness as it did not require the seeking of a medical opinion. (2) Violation Article 5(3): The applicant could only appeal to prosecutors and so was deprived of his right to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed by a court.	2009‑04‑10 21:52:47	2000 cases, Detailed summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Tam v Slovakia 50213/99 [2004] ECHR 282 — (1) Violation of Article 5(1): Detention not in accordance with procedure prescribed by domestic law. (2) Violation of Article 5(4): The review procedure failed to provide adequate guarantees to the applicant; in particular, the court failed to appoint a guardian as required by domestic law, and did not hear the applicant or the doctor treating him with a view to establishing whether the applicant’s deprivation of liberty had been justified.	2009‑04‑10 21:45:58	2004 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Shulepova v Russia 34449/03 [2008] ECHR 1666 — (1) Violation of Article 5(4): Applicant not detained in accordance with a procedure prescribed by domestic law. (2) Violation of Article 6(1): By appointing the hospital's employees as psychiatric experts, the domestic courts placed the applicant at a substantial disadvantage, in breach of the principle of equality of arms.	2009‑04‑10 21:39:13	2008 cases, Bias cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Shenkel v The Netherlands 62015/00 [2005] ECHR 935 — (1) Violation of Article 5(1): Failure, in breach of domestic law, to draw up an official record of Court of Appeal hearing which rejected the appeal against continued detention. (2) Violation of Article 5(4): Delay of 17 months before determination of Court of Appeal case.	2009‑04‑10 21:33:51	2005 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Tribunal delay
Romanov v Russia 63993/00 [2005] ECHR 933 — (1) Violation of Article 3: The applicant's conditions of detention, in particular the severe overcrowding and its detrimental effect on the applicant's well being, combined with the length of the period during which the applicant was detained in such conditions, amounted to degrading treatment. (2) Violation of Article 5(3): the length of the proceedings (and detention on remand) was attributable neither to the complexity of the case nor to the conduct of the applicant but to the lack of diligence and expedition on the part of court. (3) Violation of Article 6(1) and (3)(c): In view of what was at stake for the applicant the District Court could not, if the trial was to be fair, determine his case without a direct assessment of the applicant's evidence, and the presence of the applicant's lawyer could not compensate for his absence.	2009‑04‑10 21:23:57	2005 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Romanov v Russia 63993/00 [1998] ECHR 115 — The applicant's complaints about the prison conditions, the length of his detention on remand and the complaint concerning his right to be present at the hearing were admissible.	2009‑04‑10 21:23:51	1998 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Panteleyenko v Ukraine 11901/02 [2006] ECHR 667 — A search of the applicant's office, and the disclosure of confidential psychiatric information, was not in accordance with domestic law and therefore violated Article 8; the domestic authorities' refusal to pay compensation on the ground that criminal proceedings had been discontinued on "non-exonerating grounds" contravened the presumption of innocence and violated Article 6(2).	2009‑04‑10 15:31:43	2006 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Nowika v Poland 30218/96 [2002] ECHR 795 — The detention for 83 days of the applicant under Article 5(1)(b) (the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law) violated Article 5(1) as it was for longer than necessary for the fulfilment of the obligation to submit to a psychiatric examination; the restriction on visits by her family to one visit per month violated Article 8; compensation of €10,000 was awarded	2009‑04‑10 15:22:01	2002 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Naumenko v Ukraine 42023/98 [2004] ECHR 68 — Enforced medical treatment of prisoner did not violate Article 3.	2009‑04‑10 15:12:37	2004 cases, Challenges to compulsory treatment, Detailed summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Nakach v The Netherlands 5379/02 [2005] ECHR 445 — The practice of the Arnhem Court of Appeal, which had upheld the applicant's continued detention, not to keep official records of hearings (on the basis that no appeal could be made from that court) breached domestic law and therefore breached Article 5(1)	2009‑04‑10 14:55:00	2005 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Morley v UK 16084/03 [2002] ECHR 853 — The applicant had been transferred from hospital back to prison. He argued that his Article 5(4) right to review of his detention had been breached as the transfer had been ordered by the executive rather than a court, and asserted that he was still of unsound mind within Article 5(1)(e). This complaint was rejected (judicial review is sufficient) and his Article 8 complaint also failed.	2009‑04‑10 14:36:29	2002 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Ministry of Justice cases, Transcript
Matter v Slovakia 31534/96 [1999] ECHR 38 — Proceedings relating to capacity are covered by Art 6 ECHR; in assessing whether the proceedings are completed within a reasonable time, account has to be taken of any complexity arising from the need for expert evidence and any conduct by the patient, but special diligence is required from the court in light of the importance of the question. A forced medical examination, which is an interference for the purposes of Art 8(1), could be a proportionate method of protecting a patient’s rights as part of the resolution of capacity proceedings and so justified for the purposes of Art 8(2) ECHR. [MHLR.]	2009‑04‑10 14:13:57	1999 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
Keenan v UK 27229/95 [2001] ECHR 242 — The applicant's son had committed suicide while serving a prison sentence. Her Article 2 complaint was rejected (the authorities responded in a reasonable way to his conduct, placing him in hospital care and under watch when he evinced suicidal tendencies) but her Article 3 complaint was accepted (lack of effective monitoring and informed psychiatric input into his assessment and treatment, together with the imposition of punishments including seven days' segregation).	2009‑04‑10 14:06:42	2001 cases, Detailed summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Kepenerov v Bulgaria 39269/98 [2003] ECHR 425 — The claimant was detained for a month by a prosecutor who had no legal power to do so, had not sought a prior medical assessment, and had not specified the length of detention (furthermore, there was no legal means to challenge the detention); there therefore had been a violation of Article 5(1)(e) and compensation of €2000 was awarded.	2009‑04‑10 13:54:23	2003 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Kaprykowski v Poland 23052/05 [2009] ECHR 198 — Detention without adequate medical treatment and assistance constituted inhuman and degrading treatment, amounting to a violation of Article 3; compensation of €3000 awarded.	2009‑04‑10 13:45:59	2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
IH v UK 17111/04 [2005] ECHR 934 — The claimant was granted a deferred conditional discharge but subsequently not released as no supervising psychiatrist could be found; the House of Lords found that Article 5(4) had been breached as the Tribunal could not revisit their decision (as the law was then understood). The claimant's Article 5(1)(e) complaint was rejected (on the facts, the alternative to conditional discharge was continued detention rather than absolute discharge), as were his complaints under Article 5(4) (no longer a victim as domestic courts had acknowledged breach and afforded appropriate redress) and Article 5(5) (no longer a victim, no absolute right to compensation).	2009‑04‑10 13:40:33	2005 cases, Brief summary, Deferred conditional discharge cases, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Grey v UK 34377/02 [2002] ECHR 854 — A Tribunal granted an absolute discharge because the claimant suffered from no mental disorder, but on judicial review this was quashed because they had not first considered conditional discharge; a subsequent Tribunal reclassified him and upheld continued detention; his complaint under Article 5(1)(e) was rejected (no duty immediately and unconditionally to release into the community), as were complaints under Article 5(4) (no undue delay) and Article 6 (no right to appeal).	2009‑04‑10 13:24:35	2002 cases, Absolute or conditional discharge cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Gorshkov v Ukraine 67531/01 [2004] ECHR 726 — The claimants complaints, relating to his detention in hospital, under Article 2, 3 and 5(1) were manifestly unfounded, but his complaint under Article 5(4) was admissible	2009‑04‑10 13:07:36	2004 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Gorshkov v Ukraine 67531/01 [2005] ECHR 936 — Although a detained patient's case was regularly reviewed on an automatic basis, the patient had no right to initiate proceedings and was not a party to them; there therefore had been a breach of Article 5(4)	2009‑04‑10 13:05:43	2005 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Gajcsi v Hungary 34503/03 [2006] ECHR 822 — The continuation of the claimant's detention for three months was not in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, in that dangerous conduct had not been considered by the reviewing court; there had therefore been a breach of Article 5(1) and compensation of €7350 was awarded	2009‑04‑10 12:50:15	2006 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Francis v UK 3346/02 [2003] ECHR 707 — The claimant's mentally-ill son had discharged himself from hospital and committed suicide; her Article 2 and 6 complaints were dismissed.	2009‑04‑10 12:41:04	2003 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Drew v UK 35679/03 [2006] ECHR 1172 — The requirement to pass an automatic life sentence for the second serious sexual or violent offence in the absence of exceptional circumstances, even for a mentally-disordered offender, did not breach Article 3 or 5.	2009‑04‑09 22:36:31	2006 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Life sentence cases, Transcript
Croke v Ireland 33267/96 [2000] ECHR 680 — The applicant's case under Article 5 (about the absence of an independent and automatic review prior to or immediately after his initial detention in a psychiatric institution and about the absence of a periodic, independent and automatic review of his detention thereafter) was struck out of the list on the basis of a friendly settlement based on the Southern Irish government's intention to enact the Mental Health Bill 1999 to replace the Mental Treatment Act 1945.	2009‑04‑09 22:14:10	2000 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Southern Irish cases, Transcript, Judgment available on Bailii
Clunis v UK 45049/98 [1998] ECHR 116 — The failures in providing care prior to the claimant's offence did not breach Article 8 as there was no inevitable link between the failures and the offence; although he lost his negligence action against the local authority (partly on the basis of ex turpi causa) there had been no breach of Article 6 in the procedure.	2009‑04‑09 21:55:43	1998 cases, Detailed summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Atanasov v Bulgaria 73281/01 [2008] ECHR 1266 — The applicant alleged that his pre-trial detention and house arrest had been unjustified and excessively lengthy, that his confinement in a psychiatric clinic in August and September 2000 had been unlawful, that he had not been able to appeal to a court and that he did not have a right to compensation in this connection. Article 5(1), (4) and (5) had been breached and €2000 damages were awarded.	2009‑04‑09 21:35:21	2008 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Antoine v UK 62960/00 [2003] ECHR 709 — The claimant was detained under a hospital order, it having been found that he was unfit to plead but had done the act. His complaint was based on Article 6 (unable to participate effectively, no trial within reasonable time, breach of presumption of innocence), Article 3 (living under threat of further prosecution), and Article 5 (arbitrary detention). Application declared inadmissible.	2009‑04‑09 21:15:04	2003 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R (SP) v SSJ [2009] EWHC 13 (Admin) — The requirements of Article 2 concerning an investigation into the treatment of the claimant while she was serving a sentence of detention in a young offender institution.	2009‑01‑21 21:28:10	2009 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Miscellaneous cases, No summary, Transcript
RP v UK 38245/08 [2008] ECHR 1124 — Statement of facts and questions to the parties. (1) Did the appointment of the Official Solicitor give rise to a breach of RP’s procedural rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention? (2) Did the same circumstances give rise to a breach of Article 6 as regards the fairness of the court proceedings?	2009‑01‑15 21:36:54	2008 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (Razgar) v SSHD [2003] EWCA Civ 840 — The Secretary of State cannot lawfully certify that an immigration claim is manifestly unfounded unless the claim is bound to fail before an adjudicator; it it not enough that it is very likely to fail. All three claimants had already claimed asylum in safe European countries before claiming asylum again in the UK; the challenges to the Secretary of State's decisions were based on Article 3 and/or 8 and mental health consequences of removal.	2009‑01‑14 21:56:48	2003 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
R (Razgar) v SSHD [2004] UKHL 27 — The claimant was an Iraqi asylum seeker who had already sought asylum in Germany, but claimed that his return to Germany would adversely affect his mental health. (1) In principle, Article 8 rights can be engaged by the foreseeable consequences for health of removal from the UK pursuant to an immigration decision, even where such removal does not violate Article 3, if the facts relied on by the applicant are sufficiently strong. (2) On the facts, the Home Secretary's decision to certify the claim as manifestly unfounded was unlawful, as an adjudicator could have properly ruled in the claimant's favour.	2009‑01‑14 21:42:08	2004 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Repatriation cases, Transcript
Pankiewicz v Poland 34151/04 [2008] ECHR 148 — It would be too rigid to expect immediate transfer from prison to psychiatric hospital but, although the delay of 2 months 25 days did not at first glance seem particularly excessive, on balance it was not acceptable and violated Article 5(1); the claimant had been compensated by the domestic court so was not a victim for Article 5(3) purposes; the Article 6 complaint was rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies	2009‑01‑12 23:57:23	2008 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
A v UK 25599/94 [1998] ECHR 85 — A had been beaten by his step-father more than once with a garden cane, treatment which, on the facts, reached the level of severity prohibited by Article 3; in English law reasonable chastisement is a defence to assault, and a jury acquitted the step-father on this basis; the UK had failed in its positive obligation to provide protection from breaches of Article 3.	2008‑12‑30 22:36:33	1998 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Morsink v The Netherlands 48865/99 [2004] ECHR 197 — Transfer from prison to a clinic was delayed for over 15 months; immediate transfer was not expected but, on the facts, the delay breached Article 5(1) and damages were awarded.	2008‑11‑28 07:17:06	2004 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Brand v The Netherlands 49902/99 [2004] ECHR 196 — Transfer from prison to a clinic was delayed for 14 months; immediate transfer was not expected but, on the facts, the delay breached Article 5(1) and damages were awarded.	2008‑11‑28 07:05:25	2004 cases, Detailed summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Rutten v The Netherlands 32605/96 [2001] ECHR 482 — The decision to renew the patient's confinement order was taken after the order had expired, but under domestic law there was nothing requiring release in these circumstances; under Convention law the detention was not arbitrary, being based on a court order and expert evidence, so there was no violation of Article 5(1); however, the lawfulness of detention was not decided speedily, so there was a violation of Article 4(4); this finding constituted just satisfaction.	2008‑11‑27 22:22:17	2001 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Bensaid v UK 44599/98 [2001] ECHR 82 — The deportation to Algeria of a patient suffering from schizophrenia did not breach Articles 3, 8 or 13.	2008‑11‑27 17:45:31	2001 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Repatriation cases, Transcript
DN v Switzerland 27154/95 [2001] ECHR 235 — The psychiatrist who sat as judge rapporteur on the Administrative Appeals Commission had, before the hearing, concluded that the patient should not be released; the patient had legitimate fears that the doctor had a preconceived opinion and was not acting impartially; this was reinforced because he was sole the psychiatric expert and the only person who had interviewed her; Article 5(4) having been breached, damages and costs were awarded	2008‑11‑27 16:59:00	2001 cases, Bias cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Stec v UK 65731/01 [2006] ECHR 393 — Judgment of Grand Chamber. State benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No 1 & Article 14.	2008‑11‑24 00:16:10	2006 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases
Stec v UK 65731/01 [2005] ECHR 924 — Admissibility decision. State benefits, Article 1 of Protocol No 1 & Article 14.	2008‑11‑24 00:16:09	2005 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Welfare benefits cases
Renolde v France 5608/05 [2008] ECHR 1085 — The authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to protect the detainee's right to life, in violation of Article 2, partly because they did not monitor his compliance with anti-psychotic medication. A penalty of 45 days' detention in a punishment cell breached Article 3 (inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment).	2008‑11‑06 13:16:05	2008 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
MH v UK 11577/06 [2008] ECHR 181 — Statement of facts and question to the parties. The question to the parties is: "Do the facts of the case disclose a breach of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention: (a) in relation to the failure to provide an automatic referral to a court when a patient is detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and when that patient lacks the capacity to take proceedings; and (b) when that detention is prolonged under section 29(4) of the same Act?"	2008‑10‑31 01:18:42	2008 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Munjaz v UK 32913/06 [2008] ECHR 215 — Statement of facts and questions lodged with the court.	2008‑10‑23 00:35:31	2008 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Shtukaturov v Russia 44009/05 [2008] ECHR 223 — Incapacity proceedings and detention breached ECHR Articles 5, 6, and 8.	2008‑10‑13 15:16:32	2008 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Megyeri v Germany 13770/88 [1992] ECHR 49 — Importance of legal representation.	2008‑09‑12 17:04:43	1992 cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Kolanis v UK 517/02 [2005] ECHR 411 — Conditional discharge/Article 5.	2008‑09‑12 16:54:36	2005 cases, After-care, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Johnson v UK 22520/93 [1997] ECHR 88 — Finding that patient no longer suffering from mental illness did not require his immediate and unconditional discharge.	2007‑09‑16 11:22:54	1997 cases, Brief summary, Deferred conditional discharge cases, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
M v UK 30357/03 [2007] ECHR 206 — Case struck out of list, as friendly settlement reached to ensure MHA compliant with Article 8: MHA to be amended to allow patient to apply for displacement of NR on specified grounds.	2007‑07‑17 17:22:45	2007 cases, Brief summary, Displacement, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Winterwerp v Netherlands 6301/73 [1979] ECHR 4 — In the court’s opinion, except in emergency cases, the individual concerned should not be deprived of his liberty unless he has been reliably shown to be of ‘unsound mind’. The very nature of what has to be established before the competent national authority – this is, a true mental disorder – calls for objective medical expertise. Further, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement. What is more, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder.	2007‑06‑07 13:15:17	1979 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
HM v Switzerland 39187/98 [2002] ECHR 157 — HM was admitted to a nursing home because of neglect. She argued that neglect was not a ground for deprivation of liberty, and that she did not fall into the vagrancy category under Article 5(1). The ECHR held that there had been no deprivation of liberty and so no breach of Article 5(1). HM had capacity to object but was undecided; the clinic were entitled to infer consent from the lack of objection.	2007‑02‑07 20:35:52	2002 cases, Detailed summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Guzzardi v Italy 7367/76 [1980] ECHR 5 — Article 5(1) is not concerned with mere restrictions on liberty of movement; the starting point must be the concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure; the difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance.	2007‑02‑07 20:33:24	1980 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Ashingdane v UK 8225/78 [1985] ECHR 8 — Article 5 is concerned with deprivation of liberty rather than mere restriction on liberty (in this case the failure to transfer the patient from high to medium security).	2007‑02‑07 20:32:24	1985 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Rakevich v Russia 58973/00 [2003] ECHR 558 — Detention and Article 5.	2007‑02‑07 20:31:19	2003 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
Storck v Germany 61603/00 [2005] ECHR 406 — Breach of Arts 5, 8 for detention in private clinic. This case is taken as the source of the three-fold analysis of Article 5 deprivation of liberty, which was summarised in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19 as follows: "... what is the essential character of a deprivation of liberty? ... three components can be derived from Storck ..., confirmed in Stanev ..., as follows: (a) the objective component of confinement in a particular restricted place for a not negligible length of time; (b) the subjective component of lack of valid consent; and (c) the attribution of responsibility to the state."	2007‑02‑07 20:30:02	2005 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript
HL v UK 45508/99 [2004] ECHR 471 — 'Informal' compliant incapacitated patient was deprived of his liberty, with lack of procedural safeguards or access to court, in breach of Art 5(1) and (4).	2007‑02‑07 20:29:00	2004 cases, Detailed summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript
Hutchinson Reid v UK 50272/99 [2003] ECHR 94 — Treatability test not necessary for Article 5(1) compliance (re Scottish removal of this test); breaches of Article 5(4) due to onus being on patient and the delay for the case to come to the House of Lords.	2007‑02‑07 20:25:14	1998 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Treatability test and psychopathic disorder
Benjamin and Wilson v UK 28212/95 [2002] ECHR 636 — Technical lifer status violated Article 5(4). See "Technical lifer" page for background.	2006‑08‑15 22:14:11	2002 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Ministry of Justice cases, Transcript
JT v UK 26494/95 [2000] ECHR 133 — Case struck out of list, as friendly settlement reached to ensure MHA compliant with Article 8: MHA to be amended to allow patient to apply for displacement of NR where reasonably objected; and to allow exclusion of certain persons from acting as NR.	2006‑05‑03 21:56:24	2000 cases, Detailed summary, Displacement, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript

Article titles

The following 90 pages are in this category.

A

B

C

D

F

Francis v UK 3346/02 (2003) ECHR 707

G

H

I

IH v UK 17111/04 (2005) ECHR 934

J

K

L

M

N

O

OG v Latvia 66095/09 (2014) ECHR 989, (2014) MHLO 115

P

R

S

T

Tam v Slovakia 50213/99 (2004) ECHR 282

V

Varbanov v Bulgaria 31365/96 (2000) ECHR 457

W

X