5.  The applicant was born in 1995 and lives in Moscow.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant was diagnosed with schizotypal personality disorder and was undergoing voluntary treatment for his condition.
8.  On 24 April 2014 he was apprehended by the police on the street in the Bibirevo district of Moscow. The police report stated that the applicant had been “harassing an underage teenager” without providing a detailed account of the events. It is not clear from the material available to the Court whether the intervention by the police had been triggered by any complaint from that teenager or any other person.
9.  He was then taken to the local police station and later transferred by the psychiatric ambulance service to the Central Clinical Psychiatric Hospital of the Moscow Region (ГКУЗ МО «Центральная клиническая психиатрическая больница») (“the Hospital”). The report of the ambulance service stated the following:
“[T]aken to [a police station] for [on several occasions] sexually harassing ... [and] stalking an underage teenager and not allowing him to walk away [from such encounters] ...
Mentally alert. Aware of his surroundings. Unwilling to engage in contact. Reserved, secretive, tense, but during the conversation acknowledges the existence of the teenager and the repeated instances of sexual harassment ...”
10.  The psychiatrist who admitted the applicant to the Hospital made the following record:
“Tense, exhibits [exaggerated and pretentious facial] mannerisms. No eye contact. Selective in answering questions, answers [only] after some pause. Asks for some time to “spend with boys”. Distracted. Not reflective [about his mental state]. Diagnosis: schizotypal disorder.”
11.  On 25 April 2014 the applicant was examined jointly by the attending psychiatrist and the head of one of the Hospital’s departments. They made the following record:
“Follow-up patient history: According to the patient, about three years ago [in 2011] he started feeling the desire to be in contact with boys, to look like a girl. He dyed his hair to attract attention. He started watching television shows to observe how a woman moves; he uses make-up, dresses up. Since the beginning of last year he has become fixated on these thoughts, and started contemplating the possibility of gender reassignment. During this period he has had mood swings, has been anxious, irritable, [and had] difficulties in focusing his attention. Given these circumstances he was hospitalised in [a psychiatric facility]. After his discharge his condition improved. He continued his studies. In the past year he has started paying more attention to his appearance, using lipstick, wearing women’s jewellery, [and has] sometimes tried on women’s clothing at home. He became acquainted with a boy, a ninth grade student, during one of his walks in the city. He started meeting him, talking to him, tried to ‘have physical contact’, touched his hand, fondled it. Had a desire to be ‘caressed’.
According to the supporting documents – [a report to the head of the police station, the order for a psychiatric ambulance] – he was apprehended by police officers on the street, where he had been sexually harassing an underage teenager, having stalked him for four months, repeatedly not allowing him to walk away from such encounters. Transferred to [the police station] where he was examined by a psychiatrist on duty, subsequently involuntarily admitted [to the psychiatric hospital] ... During his examination in the reception ward he signed [a document consenting] to treatment ...
Psychiatric state: Self-aware. Subdued mood. Somewhat distracted. Looks untidy, unkempt hair, dyed ginger. Soft, high-pitched voice. Indisposed to conversation, replies [only] after some pause, does not answer certain questions, asks for some questions to be repeated. While replying he gulps with an expression of pain. Excessive facial expressions during conversation. States that he feels uncontrollable attraction to boys, to be liked by them, to have contact with them. Requests a “space to meet with a boy”. Blushes while saying this. Considers himself a “female person”. Considers in-patient treatment necessary for himself in order to improve his mood, reduce irritability and “perplexity of thoughts”. Denies hallucinations. Denies suicidal thoughts.
Diagnosis: Schizotypal disorder.”
12.  On the same day the applicant, after conferring with his father, demanded to be discharged from the Hospital; however, his request was denied.
13.  On the same day a medical counselling panel composed of the resident psychiatrists of the Hospital examined the applicant and diagnosed him with organic delusional disorder. The panel also found that the applicant was a danger to himself and others and that there was a risk of significant damage to his health due to the deterioration or aggravation of his psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance. The full text of the panel’s report and conclusion read as follows:
“25.04.2014 12.00 Panel examination due to refusal of treatment.
Lethargic, sluggish. Subdued mood. Attributes [the cause of] his subdued mood to [his] inability to meet up with a boy he is attracted to. Unsure whether that boy also is attracted to him. Goes across the city to see that ‘boy’. He wants to be ‘treated gently, to be caressed, fondled’. Admitted that he goes to women’s clothing stores [because he likes the clothing], which is ‘soft and bright’. For a long time has been visiting the neighbourhood where he met the boy; previously he had been going to other neighbourhoods to watch boys.
Diagnosis: Organic delusional disorder.
Conclusion: needs involuntary placement and treatment, in accordance with section 29(a) and (c) of the 1992 Psychiatric Assistance Act.”
14.  On the same day the Hospital applied for judicial authorisation of the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation under section 29(a) and (c) of the Psychiatric Assistance Act 1992, since the applicant was a danger to himself or others and there was a risk of significant damage to his health owing to the deterioration or aggravation of his psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance. The application restated the findings of the earlier joint examination (see paragraph 11 above) and set out the following conclusions:
“On 25 April 2014 was examined by the panel of resident psychiatrists of [the Hospital] and diagnosed with organic delusional disorder.
The patient needs to be involuntarily hospitalised and treated under section 29 (a) and (c) of the Psychiatric Assistance Act of 1992.
The examination and treatment of the patient can take place only under an in-patient regime ...
[It is requested] 2.  That the request for authorisation be assessed on the premises of the Hospital, since because of his mental state [the applicant] cannot be produced in court ...”
15.  On 5 May 2014 the Savyolovskiy District Court of Moscow (Савёловский районный суд г. Москвы) held a hearing on the premises of the psychiatric facility. The hearing was attended by the applicant, his father and mother, the attending psychiatrist Mr P., the head of one of the Hospital’s departments (Mr L.), the representative of the Hospital (Mrs K.) and the local prosecutor.
16.  During the hearing Mr P., Mr L., and Mrs K. generally advanced the same arguments as those presented in the application for judicial authorisation (see paragraph 14 above), maintaining that the applicant needed to be hospitalised and treated, that he posed a danger to himself and others, and that there was a risk of significant damage to his health in the event of a deterioration in or aggravation of his psychiatric condition in the absence of psychiatric assistance. Mr P. also reported that the applicant considered himself to be healthy and refused treatment, while at the same time “being confused, replying to questions with other questions, and being exceptionally insincere”. They also emphasised the fact that the applicant had been apprehended by the police for sexually harassing an underage person.
17.  The applicant’s parents had conflicting opinions about the need for hospitalisation. The mother stated that the applicant did “not feel well” and had been “irritable lately”, that her communication with him was restricted by the father and that she had not seen him since 10 February 2014. In her opinion, in-patient treatment was necessary. The applicant’s father, acting as his representative, objected to involuntary hospitalisation and did not agree that his son posed any danger to himself or to others. He stated that Mr X was voluntarily following the treatment prescribed by a neurologist and a psychiatrist, that his condition showed signs of improvement and that hospitalisation would interfere with his studies and future career. In his opinion his son had only tried to become friends with “the boy”, not sexually harass him. He furthermore stated that the police report referred to by the Hospital contained no information on the alleged sexual harassment or other unlawful acts.
18.  The applicant stated the following during the hearing:
“I refuse treatment and feel myself to be well ... There is nothing special about me. I dyed my hair ginger because that colour suits me, I do not like black. I only wanted to become friends with that boy, nothing special; I tried no clothes on; that is all nonsense. [I want to finish my studies]; I have only two months left and I do not want to be in hospital. I made no statements concerning trying on womens’ clothing or changing gender.”
19.  The District Court, having considered the above-mentioned statements, medical evidence, a police report, and the applicant’s educational records, the same day authorised the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation. The authorisation issued by the court in a succinct manner stated that, while the applicant and his father objected to hospitalisation, the evidence presented by the medical panel of the Hospital demonstrated that the applicant was a danger to himself and others and that his mental state might deteriorate in the absence of treatment.
20.  The applicant’s father appealed. The statement of appeal indicated that the District Court had relied exclusively on the evaluation of the resident psychiatrists, had not addressed inconsistencies in evidence, had failed to substantiate the assertion that the applicant’s condition was severe and that he posed a danger to himself or others, and, lastly, had failed to demonstrate the absence of any alternative treatment options.
21.  On 20 May 2014 the applicant was discharged from the Hospital after an improvement in his mental state.
22.  Certificates issued by the local police station in May 2014 stated that the applicant had not committed any administrative or criminal offence and that he had been referred to psychiatrists because of mental disorders.
23.  On 18 July 2014 the appeal was dismissed by the Moscow City Court (Московский городской суд). The relevant parts of the decision read as follows:
“... The case file shows that on 24 April 2014 [a policeman apprehended the applicant]. The police report indicates that [he] had been harassing underage persons ...
Since the behaviour of [the applicant] exhibited symptoms of mental disorder, [he was taken to the Hospital], where he initially agreed to hospitalisation, stated that since 2013 [he had been subject to] mood changes, and that he [suffered from] anxiety, irritability and difficulties in focusing his attention. Previously he had been hospitalised in [a psychiatric facility]; following his discharge from [that facility] his mental state improved, [and] he had continued his studies. However during the last year the condition re-appeared.
[According to the medical evidence] on 25 April 2014 [the applicant] was lethargic, sluggish, and had a subdued mood, which he attributed to his inability to meet up with a boy he is attracted to.
During the hearing the representative of [the Hospital] stated that [the applicant] had been brought in in a delusional state, and had talked about ‘a boy’ who did not [in fact] exist. In this state he had been travelling long distances, presenting a danger to himself and others ...
The evidence [submitted to the first-instance court] substantiating the need for involuntary hospitalisation – including information on previous treatment for his delusional disorder and somatic condition (a second-degree disability) – constituted legal grounds for involuntary hospitalisation.
Since the reaching of conclusions regarding the mental health of a person is within the exclusive competence of psychiatrists, the [district] court reasonably gave due regard to the report on the need to provide in-patient treatment to [the applicant] ...
The appeal does not refer to any factual information demonstrating that the relatives of [the applicant] or other persons are capable of ensuring his and other persons’ safety without an in-patient treatment regime ...”
24.  The applicant’s subsequent attempts to initiate a review of the above-mentioned judicial decisions proved unsuccessful.