Search

The primary procedure for filling the post of manager of a non-entrepreneurial medical entity (as well as for other posts referred to in Article 49(1) of the Law on Medicinal Activities) is to select a candidate by means of a competition. However, there may be cases where it is necessary to fill the post of manager, but there is no possibility of a competition procedure. In such situations, it should be possible to entrust duties in this post, but only for the time necessary to conduct the competition. In so doing, it cannot be considered that the delegation of duties constitutes one of the means of filling the post of manager of a medical entity, which is only a temporary solution enabling the medical entity to function until that post has been filled by means of a competition. In view of the legal personality of an independent public health establishment and the principle of legality in the operation of local government units in the exercise of its powers, it is appropriate to limit the powers of that body as a medical entity only to the situations expressly referred to in the provisions of the Law. However, the provisions of the Law on local government employees do not apply either to the manager of the medical entity or to its other employees.

The conditions for compulsory admission to a psychiatric hospital under Art. 29 of the Mental Health Act apply only to the person to be admitted, they lack the element of protection of third parties (as opposed to admission under Articles 23 and 24 of this Act). Due to the fact that any admission without consent to a psychiatric hospital constitutes an interference with fundamental human rights (the right to freedom and to decide about one’s life), the provisions authorizing such admission must be strictly interpreted. Art. 29 provides for two groups of reasons for admission without consent: 1) counteracting the deterioration of health and 2) its improvement. Due to the fact that placement in a psychiatric hospital is the most onerous way of treating the patient, the guardianship court is obliged to consider whether less drastic methods of therapy will not be effective in such a case.

Under the Mental Health Act, a psychiatric hospital may, in certain cases, admission a patient without his consent. In justified situations, even direct coercion may be applied to make this admission. In my opinion, this competence should be treated as the exercise of public authority by a psychiatric hospital, because in a one-sided ruling manner it defines the rights and obligations of such a patient. Consequently, for any damage caused by this acceptance should be liable under Art. 417 k.c. or art. 4172 k.c. There is no basis for such a deep interference in basic human rights that does not qualify as the exercise of public authority.