Legal issue: the constitutionality of provisions which prevents compulsory treatment of a person, who committed a crime of middle gravity in the state of insanity, in spite of continuous social danger from such person.
Ratio decidendi: the contested regulation is unconstitutional. The gravity of the crime committed by a person in the state of insanity may not serve as a determinative criterion, on the basis of which should be established the possibility of causing by such person of another essential harm or his dangerousness for himself or other people. The violation of constitutional requirements consists in 1) the belittlement of rights of the victims of petty crimes, who find themselves in unequal position as compared to the victims of heavier crimes committed by persons in the state of insanity; and 2) in fact, courts deny persons who committed petty crimes in the state of insanity a necessary and timely (although compulsory) medical assistance, does not protect them from their own socially dangerous behaviour and possible impingements from other persons, which leads to an inadmissible restriction of their rights to health safety and medical assistance, to judicial defense, protection of human dignity and personal security.
Justice Ghadzhiev, concurring, believes that Constitutional Court’s interpretation of Article 52 of the Constitution as a rule of direct effect, allowing for compensation of damage from any crimes in cases when the accused was not determined or his financial resources are insufficient, was premature.