Romania condemned by the ECHR in a case concerning involuntary psychiatric commitment (I.M. v. Romania)

Romania condemned by the European Court of Human Rights for breaching the patient's right to participate effectively in the proceedings leading to her involuntary psychiatric commitment, and for the lack of effective defence in the court's review of the request under Law no. 487/2002 (I.M. v. ROMANIA).

On 7 April 2026, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a judgment against the Romanian State, finding a violation of the right to defence of a person, I.M., in proceedings concerning involuntary psychiatric commitment, governed at national level by Law no. 487/2002 on mental health.

I. Facts

On 16 January 2022, the applicant was taken by the police from a metro station and transported by ambulance to the "XXXXX" Psychiatric Hospital in Bucharest. She did not consent to voluntary admission, so on 17 January 2022 a special hospital commission ordered involuntary commitment under Articles 53 et seq. of Law no. 487/2002, on the grounds that she suffered from an acute and transient psychotic disorder, represented a danger to herself or others, and that hospitalisation was necessary.

The commission's decision was confirmed by a judgment of 18 January 2022 of the Bucharest District Court. The applicant was represented by a court-appointed lawyer but was not given the opportunity to be heard in person and could not contact her lawyer to prepare an effective defence. The court confirmed the commission's proposal and ordered her involuntary commitment.

Her appeal was dismissed by a final judgment of 25 February 2022 of the Bucharest County Court, on the ground that her hearing was not necessary as the medical commission's conclusions were sufficient.

She was discharged on 2 February 2022.

II. Complaints

a) Under Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained of inhuman and degrading treatment during her 19-day involuntary detention.

b) Under Article 5 § 1, she complained of the unlawfulness of her compulsory detention.

c) Under Article 5 § 4, she complained of the formalistic and superficial nature of the judicial review and appeal proceedings.

III. The Court's analysis

1. Although the applicant was informed of the hearing date, she received no document or information about her procedural rights, not even that a court-appointed lawyer had been assigned to her.
2. The domestic courts concluded that hearing the applicant was unnecessary due to her health, but this did not amount to an absolute impossibility for the authorities to hear her.
3. The domestic courts did not explain why it was unnecessary to hear her at the medical facility, as permitted by Article 62(2) of Law no. 487/2002.
4. Since she could not be heard, it remained to be examined whether her interests were defended through her representative (the court-appointed lawyer).
5. The lawyer was appointed shortly before the hearing; nothing in the file shows he contacted her before the hearing.
6. Before the court, the lawyer argued, based only on the file, that hearing the applicant was unnecessary.
7. He also agreed with the request for involuntary commitment without having contacted her.
8. Without any contact with the applicant, the court-appointed lawyer cannot be considered to have effectively represented his client's interests.
9. In such a situation, the court should have questioned the effectiveness of the defence.
10. While such proceedings must be conducted swiftly, speed must not lead to merely formal compliance. The cumulative deficiencies show that the applicant did not effectively participate in the proceedings leading to her involuntary commitment, as required by Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention.

IV. Conclusion

The European Court of Human Rights, unanimously, declared admissible the complaint under Article 5 § 1 (e) and inadmissible the remainder; found a violation of Article 5 § 1 (e); and held that the respondent State must pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 4,000.

The Court also recalled the findings of the CPT in its report of 5 October 2023, following its ad-hoc visit to Romania (19-30 September 2022), regarding the treatment of patients deprived of liberty in psychiatric institutions, noting that procedures offered few guarantees to patients.

Note: This article is the author's own summary of the aspects considered relevant from the I.M. v. ROMANIA judgment, translated from French. The official version is available at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-249519.