2023-07-11 14:18:57
After a decision of the conflict court of July 3, the Circle of reflections and proposals for psychiatry (CRPA) points “a remedy” hitherto non-existent for patients held in units for difficult patients (UMD) by prefectural decision.
This decision indeed opens up the judicialization of UMD admissions and discharges. She speaks regarding the emblematic situation of Romain Dupuy, a patient declared criminally irresponsible following having committed a double homicide of nurses in 2004, and placed for nearly 18 years at the UMD of Cadillac. In 2021, his lawyers requested the continuation of his care outside the UMD (without contesting the need for care without consent), which has since been refused several times by prefectural decision (read: Romain Dupuy case: the cannot exit UMD). We will come back to this legal puzzle soon in the Law in Practice section. CRPA press release.
The Tribunal des Conflits by judicializing requests for transfer from a unit for difficult patients (UMD) to a classic unit of a psychiatric establishment opens up a remedy that was non-existent until then
The facts and the procedure
The Conflicts Tribunal took an important and long-awaited decision on Monday July 3 in the case of the request of Mr. Romain Dupuy (1) that his transfer from the UMD of Cadillac-sur-Garonne to a classic psychiatric unit be decided by the judge of freedoms and detention.
This transfer request, despite several favorable opinions from the Medical Monitoring Commission, had until then been systematically rejected by the Prefecture. If an exit order with transfer had been taken by the judge of freedoms and detention of Bordeaux on June 9, 2022, this had been challenged by the Court of Appeal on June 17, 2022 (2).
The two orders of judicial and administrative jurisdiction had declined their jurisdiction to hear such a request, on the grounds that the jurisdiction of the judge of freedoms and detention (judicial judge) had not been expressly provided for by the Legislator within the framework of the law of July 5, 2011 amended on September 27, 2013 which had judicialized decisions to maintain hospitalization without consent.
The Conflicts Court had very logically been seized by decision of the Administrative Court of Bordeaux of April 4, 2023 (attached) so that it might be decided on the competent court to hear requests for the transfer of a unit for difficult patients (UMD ), to a conventional unit in a psychiatric establishment.
In its decision of July 3, the Conflicts Court decided to bring to justice the requests of the interested parties or relatives to contest the decisions of admission to units for difficult patients or the rejection of requests for discharge from these units, whether dry exit requests or transfer requests.
A step has thus been taken in the direction of a judicialization of admission as well as exit from UMD. It would be desirable in the future for this judicial review to become systematic and not optional, as is the case with this decision granting jurisdiction of July 3.
It remains that there are several judicial judges: the judge of freedoms and detention, the judge in chambers, the indemnity judge.
We will probably soon see rejection decisions taken by liberty and detention judges on the grounds that the applicant has too many liabilities to be released or transferred, but that he can appeal to the compensation judge if he considers that his internment in UMD has lasted too long and that it is marred by legal irregularities.
At any rate UMD exit requests with transfer to a traditional institution can no longer be rejected due to the lack of jurisdiction of the court seised.
This decision is consistent with that obtained on December 9, 2019 in a file instrumented by Me Jean-Marc Panfili (3) on the jurisdiction of the judicial jurisdiction with regard to requests for the annulment of decisions on psychiatric care measures without consent. , as well as for requests for erasure or destruction of decisions and files when release has been granted.
On administrative jurisdiction
It is not incidentally that the British, like the Americans, have opted for the “common law” with regard to the acts of their administrations. In France, the central power remained barricaded behind an administrative jurisdiction inheriting from the old regime: the King’s Council, which in 1799 became the Council of State. We have even witnessed a strengthening of the prerogatives of the administrative jurisdiction with the successive states of emergency since the attacks of November 13, 2015.
The great benefit of the administrative jurisdictions does not remain regarding it less than the litigants as well as the Media, are entitled to the conclusions of the public Rapporteurs. These State Councilors state the law and indicate during the hearings to their colleagues what solution they can bring to the disputes they have to settle. These conclusions contribute to a certain transparency of the administrative jurisdiction.
In this case, which is strategic since it concerns high places of psychiatric confinement, it would be a very good thing for the conclusions of the Public Rapporteur before the Tribunal des Conflits to be published in a law review.
This decision of the Tribunal des Conflits opens a way of appeal which was non-existent until then for people detained in hospitalizations by prefectural decisions in units for difficult patients.
• Beginning of legalization for the admission and the exit of UMD, Communiqué of the CRPA. Find the associated documents on the association’s website.
1– Cf. criminal drama at the CH des Pyrénées in Pau, 18/12/2004, https://lc.cx/HgNE4D
2– See our articles of June 9 ( ) and June 17, 2022 ( ).
3– See our article on the CRPA website:
1689117842
#decision #opens #judicialization #UMD #admissions #discharges
