Ill-treatment and unlawful unvoluntary placements in psychiatric hospitals in Romania

Briefed on 25 May 2023

The Parascineti v. România concerns the ill-treatment suffered by the applicant during his involuntary placement in the psychiatric unit of the Sighetu Marmaţiei Hospital between 5 and 13 July 2005, due to overcrowding, poor sanitary and hygiene conditions, including the absence of an individual bed, and the impossibility to spend time outdoors due to staff shortages (violation of Article 3). The Cristian Teodorescu v. România case concerns the unlawful placement of the applicants in psychiatric hospitals, or in one case (Ulisei Grosu) the applicant’s arrest by police with a view to such placement, without compliance with the procedure prescribed by the Mental Health Act and without any justification relating to their mental health condition (violations of Article 5 § 1(e)).

The R.D. and I.M.D. v. Romania case concerns the non-voluntary confinement of the applicants in a psychiatric hospital for the purpose of compelling them to undergo medical treatment and about the obligation to undergo that medical treatment.

Centre for Legal Resources România (CLR) outlined the conditions in psychiatric hospitals in Romania to participants:

16,073 psychiatric beds nationwide
4 security (forensic) psychiatric hospitals
Chronic wards accommodate more than 8000 patients

CLR reminded participants of their findings of their visit to the institutions in 2019 & 2020. CLR explained to participants the lack of adequate health care services and staff and inefficient investigations of the casues of deaths in Botosani.

In Cristian Teodorescu, CLR reminded the delegates abougt the main issues in the case:

Failure to comply with Mental Health Act procedure and placement without justification relating to mental health condition.

Failure to comply with the legal requirement to obtain consent for medical treatment.
Inconsistent knowledge among healthcare professionals about the relevant procedures.

CLR also provided an overview of the main issues in the N v. Romania case:

Unlawful psychiatric confinement as a security measure for the purpose of compelling them to undergo medical treatment.
Measure imposed following criminal proceedings condemning the applicants to compulsory psychiatric treatment, based on medical reports of expertise dated 3 years before the date of confinement in the psychiatric hospital without proper examination by the domestic courts of the degree of social danger justifying the safety measure or of the degree of social danger of the criminal offense.
Absence of a legal framework concerning the obligation to undergo medical treatment: Criminal Code does not offer to people diagnosed with a psychiatric condition sufficient guarantees against arbitrariness as concerns the administration of medical treatment.

Working documents