A selection of key paragraphs can be found below the judgement.CASE OF MIKLIĆ v. CROATIA
76. In conclusion, the Court notes that the assessment of the applicant’s mental state at the moment of prolonging his internment had on the whole been adopted in a procedure at odds with the relevant provisions of the domestic legislation and had not been based on objective and recent medical expert opinion.
77. The applicant’s position in the ensuing proceedings was further compromised by the fact that he had not learned about the Rab Hospital’s counterproposal for his continued internment or its opinion on his request for release of 7 and 8 February 2019, respectively (see paragraphs 32 and 33 above), prior to the hearing of 13 February 2019.
78. The above procedural failures obviate the need for the Court to examine whether the national authorities met the substantive requirement for the applicant’s involuntary internment by proving that his mental condition had necessitated continued deprivation of his liberty (see M.S. (no. 2) v. Croatia, cited above, § 161).
79. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 1 in the present case.