View source for 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 [[Article 5|Articles 5]] and [[Article 8|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.]

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2012) ECHR 1371}}

[http://mentalhealthandcapacitylaw.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/x-v-finland-are-we-in-trouble/ Mental Health and Mental Capacity Law Blog, 'X v Finland – Are we in trouble?' (18/7/12)]. This article argues that '[i]t is at best highly doubtful that the approach in the Mental Health Act 1983, where compulsory treatment flows from detention automatically and with limited distinct procedural and substantive safeguards, is consistent with Article 8 of the ECHR'.

[http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=003-4163984-4920640 ECtHR, 'Case referred to the Grand Chamber' (20/11/12)]. The ECtHR rejected a request that this case be referred to the Grand Chamber

[[Category:ECHR]]
[[Category:Other capacity cases]]
[[Category:Detailed summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]