Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Kuopion HAO 18.12.2003 03/0728/3 AI generated

Administrative court dismissed involuntary psychiatric observation order due to procedural error in patient's voluntary admission status.

Case Number Kuopion HAO 18.12.2003 03/0728/3
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Administrative Court of Finland rejected the hospital's request to extend involuntary psychiatric observation for a minor patient who had voluntarily admitted himself but was later brought back against his will. The court found that because the patient had voluntarily entered the facility, the hospital failed to obtain the mandatory 'observation order' required by law before placing him under compulsory observation again. Consequently, the court ruled that the subsequent decision to detain the patient violated the specific procedural safeguards mandated by the Mental Health Act.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Mental Health Act 1990, Section 13, Paragraph 1; Section 9: A patient who voluntarily entered psychiatric care cannot be placed under compulsory observation without a specific observation order if they leave and return against their will.

Keywords

AI generated
voluntary psychiatric admission involuntary observation order Mental Health Act 1990 procedural error in detention minor patient rights administrative court review compulsory hospitalization

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Mental Health Act 1990, Section 13, Paragraph 1
Mental Health Act 1990, Section 9
Mental Health Act 1990, Section 8, Paragraph 2
AI generated
admin_1993_uusimaa-county__1045
Administrative court dismissed psychiatric hospital's order for involuntary treatment due to lack of mandatory surveillance order.
admin_1995_northern-karelia-county__127
Administrative court dismissed involuntary psychiatric hospitalization continuation due to procedural error in prior order.
admin_2026_eastern-finland__1467
Court ruled involuntary psychiatric home care violates law requiring hospitalization for involuntary treatment.
admin_2004_helsinki__880
Administrative court dismissed appeal as inadmissible due to lack of legal interest in the contested decision.
admin_2000_helsinki__4
Continuation of involuntary psychiatric treatment for a minor requires immediate administrative court approval.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Kysymys omasta tahdostaan psykiatrisessa sairaalahoidossa olleen, mutta jo useita päiviä sitten sairaalasta lomalle lähteneen potilaan ottamisesta mielenterveyslain 13 §:n 1 momentin nojalla tarkkailuun, kun hänet palautetaan vastoin omaa tahtoaan lomalta sairaalaan.

Tarkkailulausunnon ja sairauskertomusten mukaan alaikäinen A oli ollut psykiatrisessa sairaalahoidossa omasta tahdostaan. A lähti sairaalasta lomalle. Sairaalasta tehtiin A:sta viiden päivän kuluttua katoamisilmoitus, koska hän ei ollut lomallaan palannut kotiin eikä mennyt kouluun. Hänet tuotiin samana päivänä osastolle poliisien saattamana. Sairaalaan tuotaessa A ilmoitti, että hän ei halua palata osastolle. A otettiin samana päivänä tarkkailuun ja tarkkailun perusteella tehtiin tahdosta riippumaton hoitopäätös mielenterveyslain 8 §:n 2 momentin ja 13 §:n nojalla. Psykiatrisesta hoidosta vastaava lääkäri alisti päätöksensä hallinto-oikeuden vahvistettavaksi.

Koska A ei palannut sairaalaan vapaaehtoisesti, häntä ei ole voitu ottaa tarkkailuun ilman mielenterveyslain 9 §:ssä tarkoitettua tarkkailulähetettä. Hoitoon määräämisessä oli siten tapahtunut virhe.

Hallinto-oikeus ei vahvistanut alistettua päätöstä.