The European Court of Human Rights has ruled against the Hungarian state regarding the unlawful psychiatric treatment of an elderly woman suffering from dementia, ordering the government to pay €9,000 in compensation.

The court found that authorities had improperly subjected the woman to emergency psychiatric treatment without adequate legal representation or consideration of her rights as a patient.

The case revolves around an incident that occurred five years ago, when the woman, then 83 years old, became ill and was taken to a hospital by ambulance amidst strict COVID-19 protocols that prevented family visits.

The family reported being unable to contact her for a day, only to later discover that she had been transferred to a psychiatric facility due to alleged non-compliance with hospital staff and claims of aggression.

According to the woman's family, she had never exhibited aggressive behavior prior to this incident.

They speculated that she may have overdosed on medication, resulting in her initial hospitalization.

Upon arrival at the psychiatric unit, the hospital staff deemed her non-compliant and decided to keep her involuntarily, a decision communicated to the family only after the transfer took place.

Under the legal representation of attorney János Fiala-Butora, the family sought intervention through the courts.

Evidence presented indicated that the court-appointed lawyer was largely passive and failed to advocate effectively on behalf of the patient during the legal proceedings.

This lack of representation was criticized by the European Court, which emphasized that appointed legal representatives should actively defend the rights of individuals undergoing psychiatric evaluations.

The woman was held in the psychiatric unit for six days.

The legal assessment of her need for treatment was upheld by various judicial levels, including the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, despite concerns raised over the adequacy of legal support provided to her.

The case exposed systemic issues within the psychiatric care process in Hungary, particularly concerning how emergency treatment is administered.

The court noted that legal representatives often do not engage sufficiently with patients prior to court hearings, resulting in decisions made without a comprehensive understanding of the individual's circumstances.

Hungarian law stipulates that if a person is committed to psychiatric care for emergency treatment, the hospital must notify the court within 24 hours, with a follow-up decision required within 72 hours regarding the necessity of continued treatment.

However, the complexities surrounding the assessment of danger and risk in mental health cases often result in ethical dilemmas in balancing patient rights with public safety.

Assertions by mental health professionals indicate that many individuals are hospitalized who may not require such intensive care, while those in acute crisis may not receive adequate attention due to limited resources.

Statistics reveal that psychiatric patients are statistically less likely to commit crimes than the general population, complicating the public perception of risk associated with releasing patients prematurely.

Following the court's ruling, the Hungarian state has three months to appeal, though indications suggest that it may not pursue further legal action given the court's unanimous decision.

The order includes compensation of €4,000 for the patient and €5,000 for legal costs, bringing the total to €9,000.

This case raises significant questions about the treatment of psychiatric patients within the legal framework in Hungary, highlighting the need for protection of individual rights in mental health care.