ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 28.10.2003"ДЕЛО "РАКЕВИЧ (rakevich) ПРОТИВ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ" [рус., англ.]

то, каким образом осуществлялась ее госпитализация в психиатрический стационар, а также невозможность ее обжалования.
51. Власти Российской Федерации утверждали, что размер требования заявителя является чрезмерным, принимая во внимание тот факт, что какие бы то ни было процессуальные нарушения, возможно, допущенные при рассмотрении дела заявителя, не привели к нарушению ее материальных прав.
52. Европейский суд отмечает, что некоторые формы морального вреда, включая эмоциональные страдания, по своей природе не всегда могут быть оценены точным образом (см. Постановление Европейского суда по делу "Абдулазис, Кабалес и Балкандали против Соединенного Королевства" (Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. United Kingdom) от 28 мая 1985 г., Series A, N 94, § 96). Это не препятствует Европейскому суду присудить заявителю компенсацию, если он считает, что разумным является предположение о том, что заявитель понес вред, требующий денежной компенсации. В настоящем деле разумным является предположение о том, что заявитель испытывала потрясение, беспокойство и чувство разочарования в связи с ее принудительной госпитализацией в течение многих дней, что не было основано на вынесенном в ее отношении постановлении суда.
53. Исходя из принципа справедливости, Европейский суд присудил заявителю 3000 евро в этой части.
B. Судебные расходы и издержки
54. Заявитель также потребовала 3300 евро за понесенные судебные расходы и издержки. Она утверждала, что потратила 100 евро на независимую психиатрическую экспертизу, 200 евро на медицинское лечение, чтобы восстановить здоровье, и 3000 евро на услуги по ее представительству в Европейском суде.
55. Власти Российской Федерации отметили, что заявитель в достаточной степени не обосновала ее расходы.
56. Европейский суд отмечает, что в материалах, представленных заявителем, отсутствует что-либо указывающее на то, что заявитель действительно понесла заявленные расходы. Более того, заявитель получила юридическую помощь от Совета Европы (см. выше § 2). Соответственно, Европейский суд не усматривает оправдывающих обстоятельств для присуждения компенсации в этой части.
C. Процентная ставка при просрочке платежей
57. Европейский суд посчитал, что процентная ставка при просрочке платежей должна быть установлена в размере предельной годовой процентной ставки по займам Европейского центрального банка плюс три процента.
НА ЭТИХ ОСНОВАНИЯХ СУД ЕДИНОГЛАСНО:
1) постановил, что имело место нарушение пункта 1 статьи 5 Конвенции;
2) постановил, что имело место нарушение пункта 4 статьи 5 Конвенции;
3) постановил, что власти Российской Федерации должны выплатить заявителю в течение трех месяцев с момента вступления настоящего Постановления в силу в соответствии с пунктом 2 статьи 44 Конвенции 3000 (три тысячи) евро в качестве компенсации морального вреда в пересчете на национальную валюту по курсу на день выплаты, плюс любой налог, который может быть установлен;
4) отклонил остальные требования заявителя о справедливой компенсации.
Совершено на английском языке, и уведомление о Постановлении направлено в письменном виде 28 октября 2003 г. в соответствии с пунктами 2 и 3 правила 77 Регламента Суда.
Председатель Палаты
Ж.-П.КОСТА
Секретарь Секции Суда
С.ДОЛЛЕ


EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND SECTION
CASE OF RAKEVICH v. RUSSIA
(Application No. 58973/00)
JUDGMENT <*>
(Strasbourg, 28.X.2003)
--------------------------------
<*> This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Rakevich v. Russia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Mr J.-P. Costa, President,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr K. Jungwiert,
Mr V. Butkevych,
Mrs W. Thomassen,
Mr M. Ugrekhelidze,
Mr A. Kovler, judges,
and Mrs {S. Dolle} <*>, Section Registrar,
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
Having deliberated in private on 17 June and 7 October 2003,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (No. 58973/00) 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, Ms Tamara Nikolayevna Rakevich ("the applicant"), on 8 June 2000.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Ms A. Demeneva and, later, by Mr Y. Yershov, lawyers practising in Yekaterinburg. The Russian Government ("the Government") were represented by Mr P. Laptev, the Representative of the Russian Federation in the European Court of Human Rights.
3. The applicant alleged that her compulsory placement in a mental hospital was incompatible with Article 5 of the Convention.
4. The application was allocated to the Second Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.
5. On 1 November 2001 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed Second Section (Rule 52 § 1).
6. By a decision of 5 March 2002, the Court declared the application admissible.
7. A hearing on the merits took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 17 June 2003 (Rule 59 § 3).
There appeared before the Court:
(a) for the Government
Mr P. Laptev, Representative of the Russian Federation in the European Court of Human Rights, Agent,
Mr Y. Berestnev,
Mr V. Pirozhkov,
Mr S. Shishkov,
Ms D. Mikhalina, Advisers;
(b) for the applicant
Ms A. Demeneva, Counsel,
Mr B. Petranov,
Ms V. Vandova, Advisers.
The Court heard addresses by Ms Demeneva, Mr Petranov and Mr Laptev.
THE FACTS
I. The circumstances of the case
8. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Yekaterinburg.
A. The applicant"s placement in a mental hospital
9. On 25 September 1999 the applicant was visiting her acquaintance M.
10. According to the applicant, she stayed overnight to study the Bible and share her religious opinions. On 26 September 1999, M., offended by the applicant"s views, called an ambulance to escort her to a mental hospital. Confused by the arrival of the ambulance, the applicant asked M. for an explanation, but was ordered by the medical staff to follow them.
11. According to the Government, the acquaintance had met the applicant in the street the day before and, perplexed by her unusual behaviour, took her home to take care of her. The applicant did not sleep all night long, cried, looked around, called for her mother (who lived in Kazakhstan) and hallucinated. The acquaintance therefore had to call an ambulance.
12. The applicant was taken to the Yekaterinburg City Psychiatric Hospital No. 26. The doctor on duty considered that she was suffering from a grave mental disorder, displaying symptoms of fear, anxiety and disorientation, which rendered the applicant a danger to herself and helpless. The applicant had cried and was uncooperative with the doctor.
13. On 26 September 1999 the hospital applied to a court for approval of the applicant"s confinement.
14. Two days later, on 28 September 1999, a medical commission diagnosed the applicant as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and confirmed that she should be kept in hospital. According to the doctors, once in the hospital, the applicant remained suspicious and distrustful. She did not reveal her emotions or explain the behaviour which had led to her hospitalisation. She accused the medical staff of stealing her belongings. The applicant insisted that her detention had been inspired by her acquaintance who was a member of a religious sect and who had intended to lure her into the sect. Having no trust in the doctors, the applicant refused any treatment. She was untidy, wore three jerseys at once and did not undress for bed. The applicant also refused to wash for fear of catching a cold, and wrote complaints which she hid in her underwear. All that time, according to the medical report, she remained emotionally cold and mannered, whilst repeating herself.
B. Judicial review of the detention
15. On 5 November 1999 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg, after a hearing at the hospital, confirmed that the detention had been necessary as the applicant had suffered from an acute attack of paranoid schizophrenia. In its findings, the court relied on assertions by the hospital that the applicant"s aggravated mental condition had put her physical integrity in danger and that she had been delirious. The hospital"s representatives also testified that the applicant had been taken to the hospital by the emergency services in a deranged state of mind and that she "had remained awake throughout the night studying the Bible and weeping". A work colleague of the applicant testified that the applicant "had become uncooperative and filed frequent complaints about her co-workers" alleged prejudices".
16. The applicant"s representative allegedly did not have any access to the report of the medical commission either before or after the hearing, despite his requests.
17. On 11 November 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 5 November. The applicant states that she was unable to file detailed points of appeal as, at that time, the final text of the court decision had not been served on her.
18. On 24 December 1999 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the applicant"s detention had been necessary. However, the court established that the applicant no longer needed in-patient treatment as she had a job, was a single mother of a schoolboy and had already spent a considerable time in the hospital.
II. Relevant domestic law
The basic principles of psychiatric medical care in Russia are governed by the Law on Psychiatric Treatment and Associated Civil Right Guarantees, enacted in 1992 ("the Psychiatric Treatment Law", "the Law").
Section 29 of the Law sets out the grounds for an involuntary placement in a psychiatric hospital:
Section 29
"A mentally disturbed individual may be hospitalised in a psychiatric hospital against his will or the will of his legal representative and without a court decision having been taken, if the individual"s examination or treatment can only be carried out by in-patient care, and the mental disorder is severe enough to give rise to:
a) a direct danger to the person or to others, or
b) the individual"s helplessness, i.e. an inability to take care of himself, or
c) a significant impairment in health as a result of a deteriorating mental condition, if the affected person were to be left without psychiatric care."
Section 32 of the Law specifies the procedure for the examination of patients compulsorily confined in a hospital:
Section 32
"1. A person placed in a psychiatric hospital on the grounds defined by section 29 of the present Law shall be subject to compulsory examination within 48 hours by a commission of psychiatrists of the hospital, which commission shall take a decision as to the necessity of hospitalisation. If no reasons for hospitalisation are established and the hospitalised person expresses no intention of remaining in the hospital, the person shall be released immediately.
2. If hospitalisation is considered necessary, the conclusion of the commission of psychiatrists shall be forwarded to the court having territorial jurisdiction over the hospital, within 24 hours, for a decision as to the person"s further confinement in the hospital."
Sections 33 - 35 set out in detail the procedure for judicial review of applications for the compulsory treatment of mentally ill persons:
Section 33
"1. Involuntary hospitalisation for in-patient psychiatric care on the grounds defined by Section 29 of the present Law shall be subject to review by the court having territorial jurisdiction over the hospital.
2. An application for the involuntary placement of a person in a psychiatric hospital shall be filed by a representative of the hospital where the person is detained.
The application containing the grounds for involuntary psychiatric hospitalisation shall be accompanied by a reasoned conclusion of a commission of psychiatrists as to the further necessity of the person"s in-patient treatment in a psychiatric hospital.
3. A judge who accepts the application for review shall simultaneously order the person"s detention in a psychiatric hospital for the term necessary for that review."
Section 34
"1. An application for the involuntary placement of a person in a psychiatric hospital shall be reviewed by a judge on the premises of the court or hospital within five days after receipt of the application.
2. The person shall be allowed to participate personally in the hearing in order to determine whether he should be hospitalised. If, on the information provided by a representative of the psychiatric hospital, the person"s mental state does not allow him to participate personally in the hearing, the application shall be reviewed by the judge on the hospital"s premises.
3. The presence at the hearing of a public prosecutor, a representative of the psychiatric institution requesting hospitalisation, and a representative of the person whom it is intended to detain, shall be mandatory."
Section 35
"1. Upon examination of the application on the merits, the judge shall either grant or refuse it.
2. The judge"s grant of the application shall justify the person"s hospitalisation and further confinement in the hospital.
3. The judge"s decision shall be subject to appeal within ten days by the person placed in the psychiatric hospital, his representative, the head of the psychiatric hospital as well as by an organisation entitled by virtue of law or by its charter to protect citizens" rights, or by a public prosecutor. The appeal shall be made in accordance with the rules established in the Code of Civil Procedure of the RSFSR."
Sections 47-1 and 48-1 of the Law provide a patient with the right to complain about the unlawful actions of medical staff:
Section 47
"1.

"СОГЛАШЕНИЕ МЕЖДУ МИНИСТЕРСТВОМ ЗДРАВООХРАНЕНИЯ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ И МИНИСТЕРСТВОМ ЗДРАВООХРАНЕНИЯ РЕСПУБЛИКИ БЕЛОРУССИЯ О ВЗАИМНОМ ПРИЗНАНИИ САНИТАРНО-ЭПИДЕМИОЛОГИЧЕСКИХ ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЙ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ И УДОСТОВЕРЕНИЙ О ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЙ ГИГИЕНИЧЕСКОЙ РЕГИСТРАЦИИ РЕСПУБЛИКИ БЕЛОРУССИЯ"(Заключено в г. Москве 24.10.2003)  »
Международное законодательство »
Читайте также