Facts
[T.], who suffers from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, was placed under guardianship in 1974 and has since been in the Psychiatric Clinic Münsingen with some interruptions. In February 1981, the clinic director rejected his request for release. [T.] then requested a judicial review of the request and applied for the appointment of a lawyer and legal aid. The cantonal Appeals Commission rejected both the request for release and the application for the appointment of a lawyer. [T.] then filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that while compulsory admission represents a serious infringement of the rights of the person concerned and that the person is usually impaired in their ability to defend themselves due to their mental illness, the legislator has consciously refrained from making the appointment of legal counsel mandatory in compulsory admission proceedings. The Federal Council justified this by stating that the focus of the proceedings is on the official principle and that special legal knowledge of the person concerned is therefore not necessary. Furthermore, the person concerned can file a request for release at any time and has access to legal remedies.
In the present case, the Federal Supreme Court sees no reasons that would have made the appointment of legal counsel necessary. The appellant was able to present his position at the hearing before the…