5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Tallinn.
6.  On 27 May 2010 the Harju County Court determined that the applicant’s son, O.T. (born in 1984), had restricted active legal capacity (piiratud teovõime). It appointed the applicant as O.T.’s guardian to protect his interests in social and legal matters and in matters concerning property. The court relied on a forensic psychiatric expert opinion of 14 March 2010 according to which the applicant’s son suffered from permanent paranoid schizophrenia and was incapable of understanding or controlling his actions.
7.  On 25 October 2010 O.T. committed acts of a sexual nature in respect of a ten-year old girl and threatened to kill the victim.
8.  Criminal proceedings were initiated and O.T. was examined by a forensic psychiatric expert who confirmed, in an expert report dated 8 November 2010, the earlier expert findings (see paragraph 6 above). The expert furthermore added that O.T. posed a danger to society and needed coercive psychiatric treatment (psühhiaatriline sundravi). On 6 May 2011 the Harju County Court terminated the criminal proceedings and ordered that O.T. undergo coercive psychiatric treatment, which commenced on 6 June 2011.
9.  On 14 December 2012 the applicant lodged an application with the Tartu County Court for O.T.’s coercive psychiatric treatment to be discontinued or for his inpatient treatment to be replaced by outpatient treatment. In her request, she referred to an opinion given by a medical committee – comprised of O.T.’s attending doctor and the acting head of the coercive treatment department (Dr E.K.) of the hospital where O.T. was being detained – dated 14 June 2012, which stated: “substantial contact [sisuline kontakt] with O.T. deficient [puudulik], his answers to questions are sparse, poses counter-questions. Denies the committed offence, does not consider himself mentally ill. In need of continued treatment as he poses danger to society.” The applicant considered that the opinion was not impartial and asked for a new independent expert assessment to be carried out with respect to O.T.
10.  On 6 February 2013 the Tartu County Court dismissed the application. It relied on an opinion dated 11 December 2012 drawn up by a medical committee comprised of O.T.’s attending doctor and the head of the coercive treatment department (Dr S.K.), according to which O.T.’s mental condition had not changed. According to the opinion, substantial contact with him had been deficient, his answers to questions had been sparse, he had posed counter-questions and had made incoherent statements. During the course of the interview his facial expression had become angry from time to time, he had laughed inappropriately, and he had faked psychotic experiences. On the basis of the above, the medical committee concluded that O.T. was in need of continued psychiatric treatment. The court decided that no additional expert opinion was necessary, as under Article 403 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kriminaalmenetluse seadustik – “the CCrP”) (see paragraph 21 below) the opinion of the medical committee sufficed as evidence.
11.  Following an appeal by the applicant, on 5 March 2013 the Tartu Court of Appeal quashed the above-mentioned decision because, contrary to the CCrP, the first-instance court had not examined the case in oral proceedings. The Court of Appeal noted that under Article 402-1 § 3 and Article 403 § 5 of the CCrP (see paragraph 21 below), the ordering of a new expert report had not been compulsory and the first-instance court had been entitled to rely solely on the written opinion of the medical committee or to question the attending doctor at a hearing.
12.  On 30 April 2013 the Tartu County Court granted State-funded legal aid to O.T., and a lawyer (advokaat) was appointed to assist him.
13.  The Tartu County Court re-examined the case at a hearing on 8 May 2013. It had at its disposal the medical committee opinion of 11 December 2012 (see paragraph 10 above). The head of the coercive treatment department, Dr S.K., who had participated in the drawing up of the medical opinion in question, was also heard by the court. He submitted that O.T. had not recovered: he did not have an understanding of what was going on, did not adhere to his treatment, and had accused his mother of poisoning him. In the doctor’s opinion, outpatient treatment was out of the question. The applicant and O.T’s legal aid lawyer expressed a wish for O.T. to be released. O.T. himself stated that he did not understand anything and did not wish to make statements.
14.  By a decision of 8 May 2013 the County Court dismissed the applicant’s request, considering that O.T. had not recovered to such an extent that it would be possible to discontinue the coercive treatment or change from inpatient to outpatient treatment. It observed that there was no reason to doubt the conclusions of the medical committee’s opinion of 11 December 2012 or the reliability of the head of the coercive treatment department.
15.  The applicant appealed to the Tartu Court of Appeal on 29 May 2013. She argued that it had not been established that O.T. posed a danger to himself or to society and that no independent expert assessment had been carried out. She considered the opinions given by the hospital’s own medical committee (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above and paragraph 22 below) to be superficial and repetitive in their wording. She also invoked Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, claiming that the patient himself should have been entitled at reasonable intervals to initiate proceedings during which the continued need for treatment would be assessed. She made reference to Article 402-1 § 1 of the CCrP (see paragraph 21 below) and the explanatory annex to the relevant draft legislation (see paragraph 23 below), according to which persons subjected to coercive psychiatric treatment had no such right (see paragraph 23 below).
16.  On 4 July 2013 the Tartu Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held that the applicant’s complaint about the lack of impartiality of the doctors treating O.T. was unfounded and that the County Court had rightly relied on the opinions of the medical committee and the head of the coercive treatment department. The Court of Appeal noted that an independent expert examination was mandatory in proceedings related to the initial ordering of coercive treatment. The danger to society posed by O.T. and the preconditions for applying coercive treatment had already been independently established by a court on 6 May 2011. In the proceedings at issue – which concerned the proposed discontinuation of inpatient coercive treatment or its replacement with outpatient treatment – it was not mandatory to obtain an alternative expert opinion (see paragraph 21 below). The Court of Appeal held that in a situation where the state of O.T.’s health and adherence to the treatment had not improved and the discontinuation of his inpatient treatment or its replacement with outpatient treatment was in the doctors’ opinion excluded, ordering another expert examination would have been irrelevant.
17.  On 19 July 2013 the applicant lodged a further appeal with the Supreme Court, reiterating the complaints made in her first appeal. She also requested legal aid, since an appeal before the Supreme Court could be lodged only by a lawyer, for the hiring of whom she had no financial means.
18.  By a decision of 16 September 2013 the Supreme Court refused the applicant’s request for legal aid. The Supreme Court noted that although the applicant had asked for legal aid for herself and not for O.T., she had justified her request by arguing that there was a need to protect O.T.’s rights – primarily his right to liberty. The Supreme Court went on to add that the applicant did not herself have rights in the proceedings in question that she could protect by means of securing legal aid and that there was therefore no need to recognise her right of appeal. The Supreme Court noted that the legal aid lawyer appointed for O.T. by a decision of the Tartu County Court of 30 April 2013 (see paragraph 12 above) could have lodged an appeal in his client’s interests.
19.  On 18 September 2017 the Government notified the Court that the psychiatric treatment of the applicant’s son had been terminated, at the request of the applicant, by a decision of the Tartu County Court of 21 September 2016.