Opinion of 15th February 201135 concerning certain methods of compulsory admission to hospital 1/ Prefects are authorised, by law, on the basis of a specific medical certificate, to have persons who are suffering from mental disorders and “pose a serious threat to the safety of persons or to law and order” admitted to hospital against their will. This exceptional measure (which is taken in more than fifteen thousand instances each year), is known as “compulsory admission to hospital”36 and can be renewed, for an unlimited period of time, such that the person concerned remains in hospital. They are only discharged when a psychiatrist reaches the conclusion that the patient is fit to be discharged and recommends this to the prefect, who then decides whether to lift the order prescribing compulsory hospitalisation. However, before they are discharged, the person’s stay in hospital may be preceded by a number of “trial discharges”; these are authorised by the prefect, and are usually designed to last for longer and longer periods before the patient is finally discharged. The average length of stay in hospital of persons who undergo compulsory admission to hospital is 95 days, and this is figure is tending to rise. 2/ The exercising of such prerogatives, which is now undertaken with the assistance of regional health agencies, involves striving to achieve a delicate balance at all times between the conflicting needs of law and order, the patient’s need for treatment and showing consideration for the fragility of the persons in question. The danger that the latter may pose, both to themselves and to others – which is not necessarily proportionate to external events of a sometimes spectacular nature, and with which it should not be confused – undoubtedly calls for restraining measures. This is why compulsory admission to hospital is a measure that involves deprivation of liberty, and is classified as such both under domestic law (e.g. Paris Court of Appeal, 1st Ch., A, 13th  April 1999) and by the European Court of Human Rights (e.g. ECtHR, 3rd section, 16th June 2005, Storck v. Germany, n°61603/00). The Published in the Journal Officiel de la République française of 20 th March 2011, text n°39. 36 in French: hospitalisation d’office. 35 77