MALANICHEVA v. RUSSIA
Inadmissible
Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
1. The applicant, Ms Lada Vyacheslavovna Malanicheva, is a Russian national who was born in 1968 and lives in St Petersburg. 2. On 18 December 1985 the applicant attacked a classmate and caused the victim permanent injuries by cutting her face. Two days after the attack, the applicant voluntarily committed herself to a psychiatric facility. On 11 February 1986 a panel of psychiatrists concluded after an inpatient examination of the applicant’s mental health that despite having symptoms of a psychopathic disorder she was able to control her actions on the day of the attack and was competent to stand trial. 3. On 28 May 1986 she was convicted of aggravated hooliganism by the Vyborgskiy District Court of Leningrad (Выборгский районный народный суд г. Ленинграда) and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. In 1988 she was released from prison. 4. Between 1985 and 1992 the applicant’s name was on the hospital register of persons suffering from psychiatric disorders. It was removed after remission, with the final diagnosis being disinhibited psychopathy. 5. On 6 August 2002 the Primorskiy District Court of St Petersburg (Приморский районный суд г. Санкт-Петербурга) (“the District Court”) dismissed an application by psychiatrists for a psychiatric examination of the applicant without her consent because there was no evidence she was suffering from a severe psychiatric disorder. In the course of those proceedings, the municipal healthcare authorities, psychiatric facilities and domestic courts exchanged information on the applicant’s mental health in internal communications. 6. In 2006 the applicant, represented by a lawyer, brought a libel action in the District Court against two psychiatric facilities and the municipal healthcare authorities. She challenged the validity of her medical records, the fact that between 1985 and 1992 she had been on the hospital register of persons suffering from psychiatric disorders, as well as references to various aspects of her mental health in the internal communications between the healthcare institutions and in their submissions to the courts. She also brought other, accessory claims. 7. The defendants applied to the court for an order for a psychiatric report to confirm the validity of the applicant’s medical records. However the court refused to grant such an order because the applicant was categorically opposed to it. At the same time, the trial court took account of the provision in Article 79 of the Civil Procedure Code that a fact which needs to be proven by an examination by experts is considered to be proven without such an examination when a party to a dispute refuses to take part in the examination or furnish necessary materials. 8. On 29 March 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s libel action. The court highlighted that it was for the medical professionals to give any diagnosis about the applicant and concluded that she had failed to prove that there had been any errors in her medical records and or that there had been no grounds to keep her on the hospital register between 1985 and 1992. Accordingly, the references to her medical history and state of mental health in the internal communications between the healthcare institutions had not been libellous. At the same time, the District Court ruled in favour of the applicant’s claim for damages for the failure by one of the psychiatric institutions to provide her with a copy of her medical records and awarded her the amount she had claimed of 500 euros (EUR). 9. On 15 May 2006 the judgment was upheld on appeal by the St Petersburg City Court (Санкт-Петербургский городской суд). 10. According to the applicant’s submissions to the Court, in 2008 there was a criminal investigation against her on suspicion of theft. After spending several months in detention, the criminal case against her was terminated by the domestic courts because she was ruled incompetent to stand trial. On 30 September 2011 she was transferred to a psychiatric facility for treatment, without her consent. No documents were provided by the applicant in relation to any of those proceedings.