recent translations summaries

The Constitutional Court found that the National Assembly had caused a violation of the Fundamental Law manifested in an omission by failing to lay down the rules for compensation for damages if a person’s freedom was unjustifiably or unlawfully restricted during the ordering of emergency and compulsory psychiatric treatment under section 199 of the Act CLIV of 1997 on Health Care. In the case underlying the proceedings, the compulsory institutional medical treatment of the petitioner was ordered. The petitioner subsequently brought an action on the grounds of personality rights, seeking a declaration that the court had infringed his personality rights by ordering him to undergo compulsory treatment in a psychiatric institution, but had not served him with the order and therefore he could not appeal against it. The proceeding court rejected the petitioner’s claim and explained in its decision that an unlawful restriction of the personality right is excluded when a person crosses the boundary of these rights on the basis of an express statutory authorisation. In addition, he held that a coercive measure suffered on the basis of a court decision subsequently found to be unlawful does not in itself constitute a violation of personality right. In the petitioner’s view, the judgement under appeal violated his fundamental rights, because his right to compensation was not enforced following an unfounded and unlawful violation of his personal liberty. The legislation which distinguishes between those who suffer a restriction of liberty according to the form of the restriction of the right to personal liberty is also contrary to fundamental rights. In its decision, the Constitutional Court found that the application of the rules of the Civil Code may ultimately, in certain cases and under certain conditions, provide for the possibility of compensation for the damage caused by the exercise of public authority to persons whose emergency and compulsory psychiatric treatment was subsequently found to be unlawful, and whose personal rights were thus violated. Article IV (4) of the Fundamental Law lays down as a guarantee that, everyone whose liberty has been restricted without a well-founded reason or unlawfully shall have the right to compensation. The fact that the statutory provision applies only in cases where the conditions for liability for damage caused in the exercise of public authority are met, is inconsistent with this provision of the Fundamental Law. The Constitutional Court therefore concluded that the current legislation does not provide an effective procedural framework for the enforcement of claims in line with this expectation of guarantee under the Fundamental Law. In view of this, it called on the law-maker to remedy by 31 March 2024 the situation in conflict with fundamental rights.