AMARIKYAN v. ARMENIA

Curtea consideră, de asemenea, că nu este necesar să se abordeze obiecția guvernului cu privire la neepuizarea recoursurilor interne, deoarece cererea este, în orice caz, inadmisibilă din motivele prezentate mai jos. Principiile generale privind condițiile de detenție în instituțiile psihiatrice au fost rezumate în Stanev v. Bulgaria ([GC], nr. 36760/06, §§ 201-06, CEDH 2012). În ceea ce privește standardul de probă bine stabilit în cazurile de detenție, Curtea se referă la principiile prevăzute în Muršić c. Croația ([GC], nr. 7334/13, §§ 127-28, 20 octombrie 2016). Curtea constată că detenția reclamantului în condiții presupuse inumane și degradante a durat un total de nouă zile.

Este un temei comun între părți că, după admiterea ei la spital, reclamantul a dormit pe canapea cantinei. Cu toate acestea, nu există nimic care să-și susțină afirmația că nu a avut de ales decât să doarmă pe canapea în timpul întregii perioade de detenție. De fapt, în conformitate cu o mărturie a unui alt pacient prezentată de Guvern, pe care reclamantul nu a contestat, ea a refuzat aranjamentele de dormit într-o sala comună și a făcut acest lucru doar pentru câteva zile. În ceea ce privește motivele refuzului ei – se presupune că salteaua dezgustătoare, colegi de cameră înfricoșătoare sau pat nepotrivit – reclamantul nu a afirmat niciodată că cei din cererea ei nu au fost prezentate Curții, cum ar fi declarațiile colegilor de cameră sau ale altor persoane care ar putea deține informații relevante (a se vedea Muršić , citat mai sus § 127 și Sabeva v. Bulgaria , nr. 44290/07, § 41, 10 iunie 2010). Raportul HCAV (a se vedea punctul 4 de mai sus) nu corroborează acuzațiile reclamantului, deoarece se referă la propriile sale acuzații și nu la evaluarea efectivă a condițiilor sale de detenție. În cele din urmă, având în vedere argumentele contradictorii ale părților, Curtea nu este în măsură să stabilească, „în afară de îndoielile rezonabile”, că nu a fost oferită reclamantului nici o legătura în câteva zile pe care ea a dormit pe canapea.

În ceea ce privește plimbările, în cererea sa, reclamantul a susținut inițial că, spre deosebire de alți pacienți, nu a fost autorizată să aibă o plimbare în aer liber. Cu toate acestea, după cum s-a menționat mai sus, în observațiile sale, ea a susținut că, având în vedere handicapul său, autoritățile ar fi trebuit să ia măsuri pentru a asigura participarea ei la activitatea de exterior, dar nu a făcut acest lucru. În plus, deși se pare că telefonul ei mobil a fost luat de personalul spitalului la câteva zile după ce a fost deținută, reclamantul nu a pretins că a fost refuzată alte mijloace de comunicare, cum ar fi poșta sau telefonul telefonic – care de fapt au fost asigurate în temeiul dreptului intern –, sau chiar a indicat ce fel de restricții au fost impuse contactelor sale cu lumea exterioară (contrast) Gorobet v. Moldova , nr. 30951/10, §§ 8 și 52, 11 octombrie 2011).

Părțile au convenit, de asemenea, că reclamantul nu a fost lăsat fără alimente așa cum a pretins în cererea ei – în primele zece zile de ședere la spital ea a mâncat produse de brutărie și personalul spitalului și-a împărtășit prânzul cu ea. În ceea ce privește presupusa calitate slabă a alimentelor, deși alimentele servite în cantina de spital pare a fi monotone (vezi punctul 4 de mai sus), nu există nici o indicație că aranjamentele alimentare au fost necorespunzătoare sau că instalațiile de bucătărie nu au fost sănătoase (contrast Modarca c. Moldova , nr. 14437/05, §§ 38 și 67, 10 mai 2007). Nici nu există dovezi că reclamantul, sau, într-adevăr, orice alt pacient, a fost afectat fizic de calitatea cateringului în cantina, în ciuda acuzațiilor reclamantului că s-a simțit bine după încercarea porridge (a se vedea Valašinas c. Lituania, nr. 44558/98, § 109, CEDH 2001 VIII, Yanez Pinon și alții c. Malta) , nr. 71645/13 și altele 2, § 113, 19 decembrie 2017). În opinia Curții, capacitatea de a cumpăra alimente din magazinele din afara spitalului, trebuie să fi compensat nemulțumirea reclamantului cu posibila dieta monotonă servită la cantina de spital (a se vedea Valašinas În plus, deși spitalul ar fi trebuit să asigure nevoile alimentare ale reclamantului, faptul că, printre alte alimente, mierea a fost servită la cantina nu ridică de sine o problemă în temeiul articolului 3, având în vedere disponibilitatea altor alimente și refuzul reclamantului de a consuma miere (compare Nikitin și alții c. Estonia c. , nr. 23226/16 și altele 6 , § 192, 29 ianuarie 2019, și contrast Ebedin Abi v. Turcia , nr. 10839/09 , § 33-34 și 51-53 , 13 martie 2018 .

Mai mult decât atât, nu există dovezi că șederea reclamantului la spital a avut efecte negative asupra sănătății sau a provocat orice reacție alergică. Deși reclamantul a susținut că sănătatea sa a scăzut, ea nu a reușit să producă nicio dovadă medicală sau de altă natură care să demonstreze impactul acestor condiții asupra bunăstării ei (compare Aerts c. Belgia, 30 iulie 1998, § 66, Raportul hotărârilor și hotărârilor 1998 Georgiev v. Bulgaria , nr. 47823/99, § 64, 15 decembrie 2005; Sabeva , citat mai sus, § 41; și contrastul Staykov v. Bulgaria , nr. 49438/99, § 41, 12 octombrie 2006).

În cele din urmă, Guvernul a susținut că reclamantul a refuzat să facă duș deoarece, potrivit ei, facilitățile de duș au fost repulsive și ea nu avea lenjerie de schimb. Curtea remarcă că aceste motive de refuz la duș nu au fost niciodată presupuse în cererea ei. Nici în dosar nu există dovezi referitoare la condițiile în cadrul instalațiilor de duș ale spitalului. În plus, Curtea găsește greu să vadă legătura dintre lipsa de lenjerie de rezervă, sau chiar hainele, după cum pretinde reclamantul, și incapacitatea ei de a face duș. Prin urmare, Curtea constată că nu au existat restricții asupra dreptului ei de a asigura igiena personală. În ceea ce privește furnizarea de articole de toaletă, Curtea observă concluziile raportului HCAV (a se vedea punctul 4 de mai sus) că nu au fost furnizate pastei de dinti și periuță de dinti și că au trebuit să ceară hârtie de toaletă și, aparent, săpun de la personalul spital. poate fi, astfel de deficiențe nu sunt suficiente doar pentru a concluziona că condițiile din spital au scăzut la cerințele de la art. 3 din Convenție (contrast Stanev, citat mai sus, §§ 23 și 209). Mai ales, toate aceste chestiuni trebuie văzute în contextul brevității relative a șederii reclamantului în spital – un pic mai puțin de o lună (a se vedea Korpachyova-Hofbauer c. Bulgaria (dec.), nr. 56668/12, § 32, 1 septembrie 2015).

Curtea acceptă faptul că reclamantul ar fi putut fi suferit dificultăți ca urmare a condițiilor menționate anterior în spital. Cu toate acestea, având în vedere considerațiile de mai sus, nu este convins că aceste condiții au fost atât de grele încât să ajungă la pragul de severitate necesar pentru a le aduce în cadrul articolului 3 din Convenție.

În consecință, cererea este întemeiată în mod evident și trebuie respinsă în conformitate cu art. 35 § 4 din Convenție. Din aceste motive, Curtea, în unanimitate, declară cererea inadmisibilă.

On 30 May 2013 the applicant was forcibly taken to the hospital for treatment, following a complaint by her brother – with whom she apparently had strained relations – about her alleged violent conduct the day before. The applicant was initially diagnosed with “severe delusional syndrome” and was considered dangerous. Upon a court order, she was placed in the hospital for compulsory inpatient treatment. On 28 June 2013 she was discharged subject to aftercare by a local psychiatrist. 3 . The applicant alleged, in particular, that throughout her stay in the hospital, she had had to sleep on an unupholstered couch placed in the canteen, deprived of privacy and sleep due to the constant noise of other patients, and without any bedding, which the hospital refused to provide. As the food in the hospital had been of poor quality, she had been unable to eat anything for the first days of her detention and later, with the help of a nurse, she had had to buy some snacks outside the hospital since she had been repulsed by the monotone food of the hospital. Notably, for breakfast they had served a bun and some honey, to which she was allergic, and for lunch – a bland rice porridge, which she had refused since she had felt unwell after having tried it. No soap, towel, toothbrush or toothpaste had been provided and she had regularly had to ask the staff for toilet paper. She had not showered during her stay at the hospital and had had to clean her skin with a cloth, using cold water. The applicant also alleged, without explanation, that she had had no opportunity to change her clothes throughout her detention. Unlike other patients, no outdoor strolls had been allowed to her. Her communication with the outside world had been restricted and she had not been allowed to make calls from her mobile phone. The hospital staff had forced her to take medication without considering her allergy and upon her discharge she had allegedly been administered a forced injection of an unknown drug, as a result of which she had pain in her leg and back. Due to the poor conditions of the hospital, her health had declined and she had felt sore over her back and ribs. 4 . On 6 June 2013 the monitoring mission of the Helsinki Citizens’ Assembly-Vanadzor (“HCAV”), a human rights NGO, visited the hospital and interviewed the applicant. In particular, the HCAV report noted that although the patients usually received towel, soap and toilet paper, no toothpaste and toothbrush were provided. Furthermore, the patients were not provided each with their own bar of soap or roll of toilet paper and they had to ask the hospital staff for toilet paper. The food in the hospital was monotone and of poor quality, generally consisting of pasta or rice porridge which lacked an adequate amount of salt or oil. The breakfast consisted of a bun, butter, honey and juice; the quality of the bun and the juice were unsatisfactory both for the patients and the staff. The report also referred to the applicant’s interview, during which she had raised similar allegations as in paragraph 3 above and that she had not showered because she had felt repulsed.

The applicant’s detention ended on 28 June 2013, whereas she raised these complaints as late as in 2017. Even assuming that there were no effective remedies to exhaust, these complaints were lodged outside the six ‑ month time-limit (see Ulemek v. Croatia , no. 21613/16, § 92, 31 October 2019) and must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

The Court further considers it unnecessary to address the Government’s objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since the application is in any event inadmissible for the reasons set out below.

The general principles concerning conditions of detention in psychiatric institutions by reference to Article 3 of the Convention were summarised in Stanev v. Bulgaria ([GC], no. 36760/06, §§ 201-06, ECHR 2012). Regarding the well-established standard of proof in conditions-of-detention cases the Court refers to the principles set out in Muršić v. Croatia ([GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 127-28, 20 October 2016).

The Court notes that the applicant’s detention in allegedly inhuman and degrading conditions lasted a total of twenty-nine days.

It is common ground between the parties that, after her admission to the hospital, the applicant had slept on the couch of the canteen. Nonetheless, there is nothing to support her allegation that she had no other choice than to sleep on the couch during the whole period of her detention. In fact, according to a testimony of another patient submitted by the Government, which the applicant did not contest, she had herself refused sleeping arrangements in a shared ward and had done so only for a few days. As regards the reasons for her refusal – allegedly disgusting mattress, scary roommates, or unsuitable bed – the applicant never alleged those in her application, for which no evidence was submitted to the Court, such as statements by her roommates or by other persons who might possess relevant information (see Muršić , cited above, § 127, and Sabeva v. Bulgaria , no. 44290/07, § 41, 10 June 2010). Nor does the HCAV report (see paragraph 4 above) corroborate the applicant’s allegations since it refers to her own allegations and not to the actual assessment of her conditions of detention. Lastly, given the parties contradictory submissions, the Court is unable to establish, “beyond reasonable doubt”, that no bedding was offered to the applicant during the few days that she had slept on the couch.

As regards the strolls, in her application the applicant originally submitted that, unlike other patients, she had not been allowed to have a walk outdoors. However, as mentioned above, in her observations she alleged instead that, given her disability, the authorities should have taken measures to ensure her participation in the outdoor activity but failed to do so. In such circumstances, the applicant’s complaint about the alleged ban on outdoor activity lacks credibility or any evidentiary support. Moreover, while it appears that her mobile phone had been taken by the hospital staff several days after she had been taken into detention, the applicant did not complain that she had been refused other means of communication, such as mail or payphone – which were in fact ensured under domestic law –, or even indicate what kind of restrictions had been imposed on her contact with the outside world (contrast Gorobet v. Moldova , no. 30951/10, §§ 8 and 52, 11 October 2011).

The parties also agreed that the applicant had not been left without food as she alleged in her application – during the first ten days of her stay at the hospital she had eaten bakery products and the hospital staff had shared their lunch with her. As to the alleged poor quality of food, although the food served in the hospital canteen appears to be monotone (see paragraph 4 above), there is no indication that the eating arrangements were improper or that the kitchen facilities were unsanitary (contrast Modarca v. Moldova , no. 14437/05, §§ 38 and 67, 10 May 2007). Nor is there evidence that the applicant, or indeed any other patient, had been physically affected by the quality of catering in the canteen, despite the applicant’s allegations that she had felt unwell after trying the porridge (see Valašinas v. Lithuania , no. 44558/98, § 109, ECHR 2001 ‑ VIII, and Yanez Pinon and Others v. Malta , nos. 71645/13 and 2 others, § 113, 19 December 2017). In the Court’s view, the ability to purchase food from the shops outside the hospital, must have compensated for the applicant’s dissatisfaction with the possibly monotonous diet served at the hospital canteen (see Valašinas , cited above, ibid.). Moreover, although the hospital should have ascertained the applicant’s dietary needs, the fact that, among other foodstuffs, honey was served at the canteen does not of itself raise an issue under Article 3, given the availability of other food and the applicant’s refusal to consume honey (compare Nikitin and Others v. Estonia , nos. 23226/16 and 6 others, § 192, 29 January 2019, and contrast Ebedin Abi v. Turkey , no. 10839/09, §§ 33-34 and 51-53, 13 March 2018).

What is more, there is no evidence that the applicant’s stay at the hospital had any detrimental effect on her health or had caused any allergic reaction. Although the applicant alleged that her health had declined, she failed to produce any medical or other evidence showing the impact of those conditions on her well-being (compare Aerts v. Belgium , 30 July 1998, § 66, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 ‑ V; Georgiev v. Bulgaria , no. 47823/99, § 64, 15 December 2005; Sabeva , cited above, § 41; and contrast Staykov v. Bulgaria , no. 49438/99, § 41, 12 October 2006).

Lastly, the Government submitted that the applicant had herself refused to shower because, according to her, the shower facilities had been repulsive and she had lacked spare underwear. The Court notes that such reasons for refusal to shower were never alleged in her application. Nor is there any evidence in the case file concerning the conditions in the shower facilities of the hospital. Moreover, the Court finds it hard to see the link between the lack of spare underwear, or even clothes, as alleged by the applicant, and her inability to shower. It therefore finds that there have been no restrictions on her right to ensure personal hygiene. As to the provision of toiletries, the Court notes the findings of the HCAV report (see paragraph 4 above) that no toothpaste and toothbrush were supplied to the patients and that they had to ask for toilet paper and apparently soap from the hospital staff. Regrettable as it may be, such shortcomings alone are not sufficient to conclude that the conditions in the hospital fell short of the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (contrast Stanev , cited above, §§ 23 and 209). Most importantly, all of these matters must be seen against the backdrop of the relative brevity of the applicant’s stay in the hospital – a little less than a month (see Korpachyova-Hofbauer v. Bulgaria (dec.), no. 56668/12, § 32, 1 September 2015).

The Court accepts that the applicant could have experienced inconvenience as a result of the aforementioned conditions in the hospital. However, in view of the above considerations it is not persuaded that those conditions were so harsh as to reach the threshold of severity required to bring them within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention.

It therefore follows that the application is manifestly ill ‑ founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 3 March 2022. Ilse Freiwirth Jolien Schukking Deputy Registrar President