Judgment M.B. v. Spain - Woman ordered to psychiatric detention without proper assessment of her mental health, breaching the Convention

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 033 (2025)   06.02.2025   Woman ordered to psychiatric detention without proper assessment of her   mental health, breaching the Convention   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of M.B. v. Spain (application no. 38239/22) the European   Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned Ms M.B.’s pre-trial detention and later confinement in a prison psychiatric   hospital in February 2020, following her burning down the flat she had been living in.   The Court found in particular that the Spanish courts had not reassessed M.B.’s state of mental health   when the order had been given, and had not adequately scrutinised the reports on her health or   assessed whether her condition had actually warranted compulsory confinement. Overall, the security   order had not met the minimum conditions necessary to comply with the Convention.   Principal facts   The applicant, M.B., is a Moroccan national who was born in 1978.   M.B. suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. In March 2018 she was arrested by the police for setting   fire to the flat she was living in after having consumed alcohol. She was placed in pre-trial detention.   On 24 February 2020 the Salamanca Audiencia Provincial found M.B. had carried out the act of arson.   However, noting that she had been suffering at the time from a mental disorder and noting the large   amount of alcohol she had consumed, which had led her to be completely unbalanced, it excluded her   from criminal responsibility and acquitted her. It ordered as a security measure that she be treated in   a secure unit for a period of between five and 15 years. An appeal by M.B. was dismissed by the Castile   and León High Court. Her subsequent appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible by the   Supreme Court in May 2021. She lodged an amparo appeal, which was declared inadmissible by the   Constitutional Court in May 2022.   She was admitted to a prison psychiatric hospital (Hospital Psiquiátrico Penitenciario) in July 2021. In   June 2022, the authorities ordered that she be moved to a mental-health institution (Centro Específico   de Enfermos Mentales) as she was posing less of a risk. The transfer was carried out in November   2023.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Articles 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security) and 7 (no punishment without law),   Ms M.B. complained, in particular, that her pre-trial detention had been unlawful, excessively lengthy   and not reviewed; and that the security measure imposed on her (in the form of continued detention   following her acquittal) had not been sufficiently reasoned.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 July 2022.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any   party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers   whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the   referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   On 14 February 2023 the Court rejected a request by the applicant under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court   for it to indicate that the Spanish authorities should transfer her to a specific centre for persons with   mental illness.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Mattias Guyomar (France), President,   María Elósegui (Spain),   Armen Harutyunyan (Armenia),   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström (Monaco),   Gilberto Felici (San Marino),   Andreas Zünd (Switzerland),   Diana Sârcu (the Republic of Moldova),   and also Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 concerning pre-trial detention   The Court noted that M.B. had been represented by an appointed lawyer at all stages of the   proceedings and that counsel had provided legal assistance to the applicant, including appealing   against several judgments and decisions. However, no formal steps had been taken before the   competent national courts to have M.B.’s pre-trial detention reviewed. In view of this, the Court held   that she had not exhausted domestic remedies for the period 12 March 2018 to 21 May 2020.   For the period following the decision of the Audiencia Provincial of 21 May 2020 the Court noted that   M.B. had not appealed against that decision. It therefore held that M.B. had not exhausted domestic   remedies for the period 21 May 2020 to 16 July 2021 also.   Overall, the Court found these complaints inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.   Article 5 § 1 concerning imposition of the security measure   The Court reiterated that an individual cannot be deprived of his or her liberty as being of “unsound   mind” unless he: or she had been reliably shown to be of “unsound mind” on the basis of objective   medical expertise; the nature of the mental disorder required compulsory confinement; and in the   event of continued confinement, the persistence of such a disorder had to be shown.   The assessment made by the Spanish courts had been based on M.B.’s mental state on the date she   had started the fire – almost two years before the imposition of the security measure. There had been   no assessment of her state of mental health when the order had been given. Reports on her health   submitted to the Audiencia Provincial had not been adequately scrutinised.   The Spanish courts appeared to have made no reference to M.B.’s therapeutic or medical needs or to   the need to prevent her from, for example, causing harm to herself or others when ordering her   compulsory confinement.   The imposition of the security measure had not met the minimum conditions needed and there had   therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.   Other articles   In view of its findings under Article 5, the Court ruled that a separate finding under Article 7 was not   necessary.   2 Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Spain was to pay M.B. 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the   Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X (Twitter)   @ECHR_CEDH.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Neil Connolly (tel: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   3