The discussed judgment concerned involuntary psychiatric hospitalization of a man accused of robbery. In the course of criminal proceedings the medical experts stated that the applicant suffered from psychotic disorders and organic damages in the central nervous system. After 4 years of stay in the psychiatric hospital, the new experts held that the applicant did not suffer from any psychotic disorders and diagnosed him only with personality disorders. At the same time, the applicant admitted that he had only simulated a mental illness in order to avoid criminal responsibility, and requested the court to release him. However, the courts refused to order a release for the next 2 years. The ECtHR ruled that the continuation of deprivation of liberty after submission of the medical opinion which confirmed that the applicant had not been mentally ill, violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The article analyses two aspects of the case: the potential impact of simulation of mental illness on the admissibility of the application and the definition of the term “unsoundness of mind” in the case law of the ECtHR.

Commentary on the Judgement of October 19th 2017 issued by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Nawrot v. Poland, application no. 77850/12

The discussed judgment concerned involuntary psychiatric hospitalization of a man accused of robbery. In the course of criminal proceedings the medical experts stated that the applicant suffered from psychotic disorders and organic damages in the central nervous system. After 4 years of stay in the psychiatric hospital, the new experts held that the applicant did not suffer from any psychotic disorders and diagnosed him only with personality disorders. At the same time, the applicant admitted that he had only simulated a mental illness in order to avoid criminal responsibility, and requested the court to release him. However, the courts refused to order a release for the next 2 years. The ECtHR ruled that the continuation of deprivation of liberty after submission of the medical opinion which confirmed that the applicant had not been mentally ill, violated Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The article analyses two aspects of the case: the potential impact of simulation of mental illness on the admissibility of the application and the definition of the term “unsoundness of mind” in the case law of the ECtHR.