E.M. v. AUSTRIA

• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:1995:0111REP001816691
• Respondent State: Austria
• Date: 13 October 1993
• Application Number: 18166/91
• Court: Commission. First Chamber (European Commission of Human Rights)
• Counsel: RIEDL ; W. ; lawyer ; Vienna
• Applied Rules: 3;5;5-4;6;13;14



EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 18166/91

E. M.

against

Austria

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 11 January 1995)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

PART II : SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under Article

25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms by E. M. against Austria on 31 January 1991. It

was registered on 6 May 1991 under file No. 18166/91.

The applicant was represented by Mr. Walter Riedl, a lawyer

practising in Vienna.

The Government of Austria were represented by their Agent,

Mr. F. Cede, Ambassador, Head of the International Law Department at

the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

2. The application relates to the applicant's committal to short

term detention in a mental hospital on the basis of a medical

certificate and on the ground that the applicant had threatened a

colleague and was found to be an alcoholic.

3. On 13 October 1993 the Commission (First Chamber) declared the

application partially admissible.

4. The Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under

Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows :

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to

it :

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake

together with the representatives of the parties an examination

of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the

effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all

necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the

Commission ;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of

the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly

settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights

as defined in this Convention."

5. The Commission (First Chamber) found that the parties had reached

a friendly settlement of the case and on 11 January 1995 it adopted

this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the

Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the

solution reached.

The following members were present when the Report was adopted :

MM. A. WEITZEL, President

C.L. ROZAKIS

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

6. The applicant is an Austrian citizen, born in 1948 and resident

in Forstenstein.

7. On the afternoon of Friday 3 July 1987 the applicant had been

committed to a mental hospital against his will at the request of a

hierarchical superior, and on the basis of a medical certificate

(Parere) by a public health officer (Amtsarzt). According to the

certificate the applicant had "verbally" threatened a colleague in the

service, was found to be under the influence of alcohol and there were

indications of chronic alcohol abuse.

8. Three days after the applicant's committal to a mental hospital,

the superior in question and two other colleagues reported the incident

to the police. They confirmed that the applicant had acted in a

threatening manner.

9. On 6 July 1987 the applicant was released from the mental

hospital as there was no longer any reason to fear that he would be a

danger to himself or to others. An earlier release had apparently not

been possible due to the absence of the competent medical director.

10. In a medical report of 9 July 1987 it is stated that during his

arrival interview the applicant stated that he considered the action

taken against him to be arbitrary. He also gave another version of the

incident at the office. As to the therapy and treatment, it is stated

that the applicant behaved normally and did not show any signs of

withdrawal symptoms. He furthermore did not show any signs of having

hallucinations or mania and therefore did not need any medical

treatment.

11. Summarising, the report states a diagnosis of psychopathy with

aggressive tendencies as already discovered in a test of 1985. As a

therapy it is suggested that the applicant give up alcohol and be

supervised by a psychotherapist.

12. The applicant lodged a...