BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 50504/09
Justyna CICHON
against Poland
lodged on 9 September 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Justyna Cichon, is a Polish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Plewiska.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

In 2007 the applicant’s mother bought an apartment from a certain I.K. Apparently shortly after the transaction serious technical flaws in the apartment came to light. The applicant’s mother intended to institute civil proceedings for compensation against the seller.

She became depressed as a result of the substantial pecuniary loss she suffered because of the transaction, which she considered fraudulent. In June 2007 she attempted to commit suicide. She was taken to a hospital and spent several days there.

On 9 August 2007 I.K. informed the prosecuting authorities that the applicant’s mother had phoned her and uttered threats against her. She had allegedly told I.K. that she would kill her as she had ruined the applicant’s mother by selling her a worthless apartment which she had paid for by her life savings.

On an unspecified later date the prosecutor instituted criminal investigation against the applicant’s mother on charges of uttering threats.

During the proceedings the court ordered, having regard to the applicant’s mother’s attempted suicide, that a psychiatric expert opinion be prepared on whether she could be held criminally responsible.

Apparently shortly afterwards the entire file, containing the applicant’s mother’s correct address, was forwarded to the psychiatric clinic appointed to examine her.

The court sent two summonses, for examinations to be carried out on 24 October and 7 November 2007 to an address where the applicant’s mother no longer lived. They were not served either on her or on any member of her family.

On 22 November 2007 the court ordered, having regard to the applicant’s mother’s failure to comply with the summonses and being unaware of the fact that they had not been served on her, that the police should arrest the applicant’s mother and escort her to the psychiatric clinic.

On 30 November 2007 the applicant was arrested by two police officers. She was subsequently taken to the clinic in Krotoszyn. She was examined on that date by two psychiatrists and discharged immediately afterwards.

She hanged herself on 2 December 2007.

On 13 October 2008 the applicant’s daughter requested the prosecutor to institute a criminal investigation against the persons responsible for the order that her mother should be arrested with a view to the psychiatric examination.

On 18 November 2008 the Gostyn District Prosecutor refused to institute the investigation. It was found that the summonses to attend the psychiatric examination had twice been sent to the wrong address and were never served on the applicant’s mother. The prosecutor was of the view that the court was not responsible for this because it had not known the correct address as the case-file had at that time already been forwarded to the experts. The applicant’s submission that there was a causal link between the defendant’s arrest on 30 November 2007 and her suicide two days later was too categorical. There were no grounds on which to accept that the prosecuting authorities, the police and the court had failed to perform their duties correctly and that, as a result, the applicant’s mother had been driven to suicide.

The applicant appealed. She argued that her mother had suffered from depression and the authorities had been aware of this. They had relied on her attempt to commit suicide when ordering the psychiatric examination. No proper regard had been had to the fact that her mother had been psychologically fragile. The authorities had failed to conduct the criminal case against her mother properly in that no steps had been taken to establish her actual address, although available in the case file, and to serve the summonses correctly. As a result of that failure, her mother had been arrested on 30 November 2007. The arrest had shocked her tremendously. The opinion prepared by the experts to the effect that she could stand trial was worthless as shown by the fact that her mother committed suicide only two days after the examination.

On 13 March 2009 the Leszno District Court dismissed the appeal. It observed that the summonses had been served at the wrong address, but the court could not have known this. It had not had the case file at its disposal at the material time as it had already been sent to the psychiatrists. In any event, the persons concerned had no case to answer.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 2 of the Convention that the authorities, through their treatment of her mother, drove her to suicide. The court twice sent the summonses for the psychiatric examination to the wrong address. No appropriate steps were taken to establish her correct address, despite the fact that it was available in the file of the criminal case. She was forcibly taken to the psychiatric examination by the police. The court and the police failed to take into account that her mental state was fragile as shown by her earlier suicide attempt. She committed suicide immediately after the examination, having already suffered from serious depression and still in shock caused by her arrest.

She also complains that the investigation into her mother’s death was not adequate or effective, as required by the procedural obligation imposed by Article 2 of the Convention, because the authorities cleared the persons concerned of all responsibility.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Has there been a failure to protect the applicant’s mother’s right to life, ensured by Article 2 of the Convention, in the present case?

2.  Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see paragraph 104 of Salman v. Turkey [GC], no. 21986/93, ECHR 2000-VII), was the investigation in the present case by the domestic authorities in breach of Article 2 of the Convention?