Inwiefern Bewegungseinschränkungen zulässig sind, regeln die Art. 383 ff. ZGB (ggf. i.V.m. Art. 438 ZGB). Daneben gilt es aber auch die Rechtsprechung des Europäischen Gerichtshofes für Menschenrechte (EGMR) zu Art. 3 EMRK zu berücksichtigen. Der EGMR hatte in einem neueren Urteil die Gelegenheit, seine Rechtsprechung zu Bewegungseinschränkungen im Rahmen von psychiatrischen Behandlungen zusammenzufassen.
Zunächst hielt er fest: “it is for the medical authorities to decide, on the basis of the recognised rules of medical science, on the therapeutic methods to be used, if necessary by force, to preserve the physical and mental health of patients who are entirely incapable of deciding for themselves, and for whom they are therefore responsible. The established principles of medicine are admittedly, in principle, decisive in such cases; as a general rule, a measure which is a therapeutic necessity cannot be regarded as inhuman or degrading. The Court must nevertheless satisfy itself that the medical necessity has been convincingly shown to exist (M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2), cited above, § 98).”
Weiter führte der EGMR aus: «Turning to physical restraint, the court noted (at paragraph 84) that: the developments in contemporary legal standards on seclusion and other forms of coercive and nonconsensual measures against patients with psychological or intellectual disabilities in hospitals and all other places of deprivation of liberty require that such measures be employed as a matter of last resort, when their application is the only means available to prevent immediate or imminent harm to the patient or others […] Furthermore, the use of such measures must be commensurate with adequate safeguards against any abuse, provide sufficient procedural protection, and be capable of demonstrating sufficient justification that the requirements of ultimate necessity and proportionality have been complied with and that all other reasonable options have failed to satisfactorily contain the risk of harm to the patient or others. It must also be shown that the coercive measure at issue was not prolonged beyond the period which was strictly necessary for that purpose […].”
Schliesslich gelangte der EGMR zu folgendem Schluss zur Dauer der Einschränkung: “It will depend on whether the continuation and duration of the measure of physical restraint in respect of the applicant was the only means available to prevent immediate or imminent harm to himself or others […].”
Im vorliegenden Fall (Fixierung eines Mannes, welcher an einer paranoiden Schizophrenie leidet, an einem Bett für ca. 23 Stunden) waren diese Voraussetzungen nicht erfüllt.