The Downfall of Involuntary Psychiatric Treatment

The decision of the XII Senate of the German Federal Court of Justice ZB 60-26   of April 29, 2026, appears to us to be sensational in several respects.

Because:
a) it was decided by judge Guhling, who is viewed with particular suspicion as presiding judge (Guhling was hoisted into the Federal Court of Justice by the CSU, the Christian Social Union Party in Bavaria, the rightest wing but not as horrible as the extreme right),
b) the natural will of a person alone is now decisive for the unlawfulness of forced treatment; no last resort, no reason is required anymore, therefore neither „reducing“ nor „avoiding“ treatment, but rather the death knell of coercive psychiatry!
c)  Disregard for the will of a person can still be asserted retroactively within the statute of limitations, precisely because the forced treatment was unlawful from the outset. This creates the conditions for a multitude of claims for damages and compensation for pain and suffering.

This is a breakthrough, an epochal event, which in turn makes psychiatric confinement superfluous, since treatment against the patient’s will is no longer possible. Therefore, psychiatric confinement can no longer be justified by the alleged necessity of forced „recovery.“ We already implicitly pointed this out in issue 3 of „Zwang“ (Coercion) in 2006 .

We are now delighted by an expected wave of lawsuits seeking damages for pain and suffering. However, please note that the statute of limitations must not yet have expired when filing a lawsuit, otherwise it will be ineffective.
We have published a draft lawsuit here which you can read in English using our automatic translation function (upper right). (This  ruling by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) is likely to present an insurmountable obstacle to both legislative attempts to legalize involuntary outpatient treatment and efforts to establish a so-called „dangerous individual“ register, because any involuntary psychiatric treatment constitutes grievous bodily harm and can easily lead to claims for damages. Which doctor/clinic will still want to take this risk? It would be better to actively oppose these legislative efforts now, including from the medical profession!

Using our automatic translation function (upper right), you can read in English here what AI concludes politically from this. 

rene talbot
(Member of the board of a national German survivor organization)