Judgment B.M. v. Spain - Spanish court’s failure to protect patient’s rights during hearing to approve compulsory psychiatric detention breached the Convention

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 260 (2025)   06.11.2025   Spanish court’s failure to protect psychiatric patient’s rights during hearing   breached the Convention   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of B.M. v. Spain (application no. 25893/23) the European   Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:   Violation of Article 5 § 1 (e) (lawful detention of persons of unsound mind) of the European   Convention on Human Rights.   In May 2021 the applicant was detained in a psychiatric hospital under the Civil Procedure Act. His   detention was approved by the Madrid Court of First Instance no. 30. The applicant attended the   hearing online from hospital and was not assisted by a lawyer.   The Court found that the manner in which the authorities had processed the approval of the   applicant’s compulsory detention had fallen short of the effective procedural safeguards against   arbitrary detention. In particular, it found that the applicant’s rights would have been better   protected had the first-instance court actively sought to find out whether he wished to have legal   assistance or not. Indeed, that was particularly significant in a case such as the applicant’s, involving   a person in a situation of vulnerability who had repeatedly expressed the wish to speak to a lawyer   and had complained about his treatment.   Principal facts   The applicant, B.M., is a Spanish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Madrid (Spain).   On Friday 14 May 2021, following an aggressive outburst at work, the applicant was taken to the   accident and emergency department of a public general hospital by the police. At 1.21 a.m. on   Saturday 15 May 2021, he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital on an involuntary basis. At 9.54   a.m. that day, the psychiatric hospital sent a fax to the judicial authorities to inform them of the   applicant’s urgent admission. On Tuesday 18 May 2021, the Madrid Court of First Instance no. 30   (“the first-instance court”) held a hearing via the Zoom internet platform and approved the   applicant’s detention. The applicant attended the hearing online from the hospital and was not   assisted by a lawyer.   On 5 November 2021, the Madrid Audiencia Provincial rejected an appeal by the applicant against   the first-instance court’s decision of 18 May 2021, finding that he had not expressly requested the   assistance of a lawyer during the hearing and in any event, he had since been discharged from   hospital. The Constitutional Court declared an amparo appeal lodged by the applicant inadmissible   for lack of constitutional significance.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16 June 2023.   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.   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (e), the applicant complained that the legal requirements for the approval of   the detention measure had not been respected, in particular, his right to be assisted by a lawyer   during the hearing before the judge.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Kateřina Šimáčková (the Czech Republic), President,   María Elósegui (Spain),   Andreas Zünd (Switzerland),   Diana Sârcu (the Republic of Moldova),   Mykola Gnatovskyy (Ukraine),   Vahe Grigoryan (Armenia),   Sébastien Biancheri (Monaco),   and also Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 1 (e)   The Court considered, firstly, that while the applicant had not contested the very grounds for his   deprivation of liberty in his application form, his complaints concerned more than only the lack of   legal representation during the hearing. The Court would therefore review all the circumstances of   his complaint.   The Court went on to note that the applicant’s detention in a psychiatric hospital had been judicially   approved within 72 hours as required under the Civil Procedure Act. Under that Act, the   first-instance court had been required to have at its disposal a medical report prepared by a doctor.   Indeed, a doctor appointed by the first-instance court had been present in the courtroom together   with the judge and the registrar during the hearing. However, the doctor had never apparently met   the applicant in person, let alone examined him before the hearing. The medical report merely   reiterated the same preliminary diagnosis that had been made on the day of the applicant’s   admission, without further consideration. The Court questioned whether the detention of a person   of unsound mind could be approved on the basis of a medical report issued in those conditions.   The applicant had not been assisted by a lawyer during the hearing. Under the domestic law, while   the presence of a lawyer was not compulsory, the applicant had had the right to be represented   during the proceedings should he have so chosen. The Court could not be sure that he had expressly   stated his wish to dispense with legal assistance. On the contrary, the applicant had tried to contact   a lawyer before the hearing and his admission report noted that he had repeatedly asked to speak to   his lawyer and had made complaints about his treatment.   It was essential that a person being detained in psychiatric hospital should have access to a court   and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of   representation. In a case such as the applicant’s, involving a person in a situation of vulnerability, the   right to legal assistance would have been better protected had the first-instance court actively   sought to find out the applicant’s position on the matter. That was particularly significant   considering the information contained in the admission report (that the applicant wished to speak to   a lawyer and had made complaints about his treatment), which had been at the first-instance court’s   disposal.   The Court concluded that the Spanish authorities had failed to conduct a thorough scrutiny of the   applicant’s deprivation of liberty and that the manner in which they had processed the approval of   the applicant’s compulsory detention had fallen short of the effective procedural safeguards against   arbitrary detention.   There had accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention.   2 Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Spain was to pay the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary   damage and EUR 7,000 in respect of costs and expenses.   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.   Follow the Court on Bluesky @echr.coe.int, X ECHR_CEDH, LinkedIn, and YouTube.   Contact ECHRPress to subscribe to the press-release mailing list.   Where can the Court’s press releases be found? HUDOC - Press collection   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.   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