EIT jälleen kiinnostunut oikeussuojakeinoista pakkolääkitystä vastaan10.1.2022 | Oikeusuutiset
Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin on joulukuussa 2021 lähettänyt Suomen hallituksen vastattavaksi jo toisen valituksen, jossa on kyse mielisairaalaan tahdon vastaiseen hoitoon otetun oikeussuojakeinoista pakkolääkitsemistä vastaan. Edellinen valitus E.S v. Suomi kommunikoitiin hallitukselle keväällä 2021.
Application no. 19035/21
H.H. against Finland
lodged on 8 April 2021 communicated on 16 December 2021
The application concerns the lack of an oral hearing, the forced medication of the applicant in a mental hospital and the lack of an effective remedy in that respect. The applicant invokes Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention.
The applicant was admitted to a mental hospital on 9 April 2020 and her stay there was prolonged on 5 May and 31 July 2020 respectively. During this period she has been forcibly medicated. After each decision to admit her, the applicant complained about the admission decisions and about the forced medication to the Administrative Court which each time refused her request for an oral hearing and dismissed her complaints on forced medication without examining the merits since forced medication did not fall within its area of competence. On 27 October and 21 December 2020 respectively, the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal. The applicant then lodged a compensation claim before a district court in respect of the forced medication. These proceedings are still pending and not subject to the present application.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been a public hearing in the present case, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as far as her forced medication is concerned? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
3. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?