B.M. v Spain: Psychiatric detention violated procedural safeguards under Article 5

The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgement in B.M. v Spain (Application no. 25893/23) on 6 November 2025, finding a violation of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention. The case concerned the compulsory committal of a Spanish national to a psychiatric hospital in May 2021, where the Court identified significant deficiencies in the procedural safeguards surrounding his detention.

Following a workplace incident on 14 May 2021, the applicant was transferred to a general hospital and subsequently to a psychiatric facility for compulsory committal. He was admitted at 1.21 a.m. on 15 May with a preliminary diagnosis of "psychotic symptomatology to be determined". The Madrid Court of First Instance No. 30 approved the committal on 18 May 2021 following a hearing conducted via Zoom, during which the applicant was not represented by a lawyer despite having repeatedly requested legal assistance.

The applicant attempted to contact a lawyer twice—once from the general hospital and again from the psychiatric facility—but was only able to secure legal representation on 20 May, when his lawyer attended the hospital. A habeas corpus application was rejected, and the applicant remained detained until 28 May 2021. His subsequent appeal and constitutional amparo claim were unsuccessful.

The Court's assessment

The Court emphasised that deprivations of liberty must be subjected to thorough scrutiny to ensure effective procedural safeguards against arbitrary detention, particularly given the vulnerability of individuals suffering from mental disorders. Several deficiencies emerged during the Court's examination.

Firstly, the medical report underpinning the committal decision was inadequate. The court-appointed forensic doctor appeared never to have examined the applicant in person, nor asked questions during the remote hearing. The report merely reiterated the preliminary hospital diagnosis without further analysis, bearing only the registrar's signature. The Court doubted whether such a report could properly support a finding of "unsound mind" under Article 5 § 1 (e).

Secondly, whilst Spanish law did not mandate legal representation in such proceedings, the applicant's clear wish for legal assistance—documented in the admission report—was not adequately addressed. The Court noted that although a pre-typed sentence in the court record mentioned the right to representation, it remained unclear how this information was communicated during the remote hearing, and there was no evidence the applicant understood or waived this right.

The public prosecutor's role became particularly significant in the absence of legal representation. However, the prosecutor's written statement merely quoted Article 12 § 4 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities without reference to the applicant's specific situation, having neither met him nor attended the hearing.

Additionally, the Court found the committal decision's reasoning insufficient. The domestic court declared that "psychotic symptomatology to be determined" constituted a mental illness requiring hospitalisation, yet failed to explain why outpatient treatment was impossible or why the measure was necessary.

The Court concluded that Spanish authorities failed to conduct thorough scrutiny of the deprivation of liberty, with the approval process falling short of effective procedural safeguards against arbitrary detention. The Court awarded €5,000 for non-pecuniary damage and €7,000 for costs and expenses.

This judgement reinforces the importance of robust procedural protections in psychiatric detention cases, particularly regarding medical assessment quality, access to legal representation, and proper service of decisions affecting personal liberty.