On 9 December 2025, the European Court of Human Rights delivered an important judgment in the case of H.H. v. Finland regarding the right to an oral hearing in legal cases challenging involuntary psychiatric commitment and treatments imposed without the person’s consent.
The case involved a 52-year-old woman with psychosocial disabilities who was involuntarily placed multiple times in a psychiatric hospital in Finland. The applicant appealed each commitment decision in the Turku Administrative Court, also requesting the cessation of involuntary medication and an oral hearing so she could be heard in person. She wanted to leave the psychiatric hospital and receive treatment while living in the community.
Validity Foundation, who intervened as a third party in the case, noted that the right to be present and heard at court hearings is connected to the principle of equality of arms and ensures the adversarial nature of the proceedings. Persons with disabilities can effectively engage in court proceedings through participation, being heard by the court, and benefiting from procedural accommodations that enable their effective engagement.
The Court assessed that, although the European Convention does not require that a detained person be heard every time she lodges an appeal against a detention decision, they should be able to exercise the right to be heard at reasonable intervals (para 30). “In the Court’s view, the applicant’s repeated admissions and discharges from involuntary treatment at fairly short intervals can create uncertainty about the necessity and justification of these measures. The fact that the applicant was subjected to involuntary medications further underscored the need for effective procedural safeguards in these circumstances” (para 34). The Court highlighted that procedural fairness required the applicant to be heard, either in person or if necessary, through representation before the Administrative Court.
Subsequently, the Court held that the effectiveness of the judicial review had been undermined, resulting in a violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. The Applicant was granted 9,000 Euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 2,900 Euros in respect of costs and expenses.
Validity Foundation considers this case to be an important reinforcement of procedural rights. However, we want to underline that any detention linked to the existence of a disability is discriminatory and should have direct implications for the assessment of the lawfulness of detention under Article 5 of the Convention. Even if the practice of psychiatric involuntary placement is considered to be compliant with national law, it is incompatible with Article 14 of the UN Convention on the right of persons with disabilities; it is discriminatory in nature and amounts to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty.