M.A. v. Latvia: Detention of mentally ill person in prison violates Article 5

The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgement in M.A. v. Latvia (Application no. 55234/21) on 6 November 2025, finding a violation of Article 5 § 1 where a mentally ill person remained detained in ordinary prison facilities despite domestic court orders for placement in a psychiatric hospital.

The applicant, a Latvian national born in 1967, had been serving a four-year prison sentence imposed in March 2018 for fraud, tax evasion and forgery. She suffered from organic personality disorder and epilepsy, having been assessed with second-degree disability due to mental illness since 2016.

In the context of separate criminal proceedings in April 2021, a forensic psychiatric examination concluded that the applicant's mental condition had deteriorated significantly and she could neither participate in court proceedings nor serve a prison sentence. On 13 July 2021, the Riga City Pārdaugava District Court ordered her placement in a general psychiatric hospital for six months, a decision that entered into force on 10 August 2021.

Despite this order, the applicant remained in ordinary prison facilities until 4 February 2022, when the Latgale District Court released her from serving her original sentence and applied compulsory medical measures. She was transferred to the Riga Psychiatric and Narcology Centre on the same day.

The Court's analysis

The Strasbourg Court found that the applicant's detention fell within the scope of both Article 5 § 1(a) (lawful detention following conviction) and Article 5 § 1(e) (lawful detention of persons of unsound mind). However, the Court emphasised that whilst her initial detention was punitive in nature, the purpose shifted to therapeutic once the District Court determined she was of unsound mind on 13 July 2021.

The Court held that from this date, the purpose of detention became incompatible with the aims of her original conviction. The therapeutic purpose required under Article 5 § 1(e)—aimed at curing or alleviating mental health conditions—could not be satisfied in ordinary prison facilities where treatment did not exceed basic care and no individualised treatment programme was implemented.

Notably, the Court acknowledged that domestic authorities had acted diligently in following procedural requirements to secure the applicant's release from her sentence. However, it identified a critical lack of coordination between domestic courts handling parallel criminal proceedings. The Latgale District Court ordered a fresh forensic psychiatric examination on 27 September 2021, despite a recent examination having been completed in May 2021, with no reasons given for the necessity of repeating the assessment. This lack of coordination, combined with COVID-19 restrictions, caused significant delay in admission to specialised psychiatric facilities.

The Court awarded €9,000 in non-pecuniary damages.

Article 3 complaint rejected

The applicant's complaint under Article 3 regarding inadequate medical treatment was declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The Court maintained its established approach that complaints concerning conditions of detention in Latvian prisons must first be pursued before administrative courts, which have power to order interim measures. The applicant's mental condition and access to legal representation did not constitute special circumstances dispensing with this requirement.

This judgement reinforces the principle that detention of mentally ill persons must serve a genuine therapeutic purpose with appropriate facilities and individualised treatment programmes, regardless of procedural complexities in parallel criminal proceedings.

Copyright & permissions