Европейский суд по правам человека
23 апреля 2024
Facts
In February 2003 Ms. Mockutė affiliated herself to the Ojas Meditation Centre, a branch of the Osho religious movement, and began practising meditation, which she said brought her “inner healing”. In May 2003 she had a breakdown and was forcibly admitted to a psychiatric hospital, where she remained for 52 days. During that time a documentary was aired on national television. It featured Ms. Mockutė’s doctor, mother and sister, referred to the Ojas Meditation Centre, and discussed the applicant using a pseudonym.
Complaint
Ms. Mockutė complained that the hospital had revealed personal, confidential information about her private life to the journalists and her mother. She also complained that she had been prevented from practising her religion on account of a restrictive hospital environment, and because the psychiatrists had persuaded her to have a critical attitude towards her religion.
Court’s ruling
The Court reiterated that personal information relating to a patient belongs to private life. It is crucial not only to respect the sense of privacy of a patient but also to preserve his or her confidence in the medical profession and in the health services in general. Without such protection, those in need of medical assistance may be deterred from revealing such information of a personal and intimate nature as may be necessary to receive appropriate treatment and, even, from seeking such assistance.
The Court found that a doctor at had revealed sensitive confidential information to the journalists that had been obtained during the applicant’s involuntary hospitalisation and treatment. That information, which had included the applicant’s diagnosis and references to her treatment, her studies, and her sexual life, had been shared without her consent. Those revelations had amounted to an interference with her right to privacy. This also applies to the passing of information to her mother, especially as the relationship between the two women had been tense.
Regarding religion, the Court took note of the applicant’s vulnerability as a psychiatric patient, remarking that there was a need for “increased vigilance” when it came to reviewing such cases. Two factors were decisive in concluding that there had been an interference with her right to freedom of religion. First, she had been held unlawfully at the hospital for more than 50 days and had for the most part been under a very strict regime, such that she had been unable either to practise meditation or to visit the Osjo Meditation Centre. Second, the doctors had tried to “correct” her to persuade her to abandon her religion, which they considered as “fictitious”, and she had felt constrained to obey them, even on pain of receiving a diagnosis which would have made her unemployable. Ms. Mockutė had overall demonstrated that pressure had been exerted on her to change her religious beliefs and to prevent her from manifesting them. Thus there was a violation of Article 9.