A selection of key paragraphs can be found below the document.
CASE-OF-AFTANACHE-v.-ROMANIA
92. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court notes that no legal basis was offered by the authorities for the applicant’s deprivation of liberty. The applicant had duly brought his grievance to the authorities’ attention (see notably paragraph 34 above), but received no answer from them.
94. Firstly, concerning the grounds permitted by Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the Court notes that, under domestic law, an individual suspected of having committed a criminal act could have been escorted to the police station if his identity could not be verified (see paragraph 42 above). (…) There is nothing in the domestic decisions leading the Court to believe that the applicant would have refused to state his identity.
97. In this context, the Court notes that under domestic legislation, the police or medical personnel may request the non-voluntary admission to a psychiatric hospital (see paragraph 43 above). However, in the present case, no such official request seems to have been made.
98. Turning to the necessity of the measure, (…) the Court also notes that the applicant did not have a psychiatric record and that the domestic courts found that he had not been violent during the incident (see paragraph 22 above and, mutatis mutandis,Ulisei Grosu, cited above, § 52 in fine).
99. The Court accepts that (…) a certain state of discomfort and agitation is thus understandable in those circumstances. However, there is no evidence that the medical professionals had considered his personal circumstances and the possible explanations for his behaviour before recommending admission to the psychiatric hospital. Consequently, the Court considers that the applicant’s alleged agitation was not sufficient to render the measure of confinement necessary.
100. For these reasons, the Court is not satisfied that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty on 30 March 2017 was free from arbitrariness and in compliance with domestic law. Consequently, the deprivation of his liberty was neither falling within one of the exceptions set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1, nor “lawful” within the meaning of that provision. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 1.
