Compulsory Admission and Detention: Prerequisites, Procedures, and Remedies

The phone rings one Thursday evening. “Your mother has been taken to a psychiatric hospital by the police,” says a voice from the public order office. Or you open a letter from the magistrates’ court: a hearing, a compulsory admission case, tomorrow at 10 am. Or you are the one affected and don’t know how long they are allowed to keep you here.

Involuntary placement is the most serious intervention recognised by German law outside the criminal justice system. That is precisely why it is subject to strict conditions and a formal procedure — and that is precisely why it is worth knowing your rights. This article explains when involuntary commitment is permissible, how the procedure works and what legal remedies are available to those affected and their relatives.

Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. This article is for general information purposes only and is not a substitute for individual legal advice. Deportation proceedings move quickly, and the time limits for appealing are short. If you or someone close to you is affected, please contact a solicitor as soon as possible.

What does „accommodation“ actually mean?

In legal terms, ‘committal’ refers to admission to a secure institution against the will of the person concerned — or whilst they are in a state in which they are unable to express their will. What matters is not the sign on the ward door, but the effect: anyone who is not permitted to leave the institution is deemed to have been committed.

This relates to Article 2(2) of the Basic Law (freedom of the person) and Article 104 of the Basic Law, which requires a judicial decision for any deprivation of liberty. For this reason, every instance of compulsory admission is concluded with a ruling by the local magistrates’ court — even if the person was initially taken to the clinic by the police or the public order office.

It is also important to distinguish this from legal guardianship. Guardianship under Section 1814 of the German Civil Code (BGB) does not constitute placement in care. It means that a person is legally represented in certain areas — for example, in dealings with public authorities or doctors. A guardian is appointed only where necessary (Section 1814(3) of the German Civil Code (BGB)), and, in accordance with Section 1814(2) of the BGB, never against the free will of the person concerned. Most guardianships continue throughout a person’s lifetime without a single measure that deprives them of their liberty.

Why older advice articles on this topic are often wrong

On 1 January 2023, the Act of 4 May 2021 on the Reform of Guardianship and Care Law came into force. It has reorganised and renumbered the entire body of care law.

The key point: The former central provision, Section 1906 of the German Civil Code (BGB), no longer exists. Civil law provisions on accommodation are now set out in Section 1831 of the German Civil Code (BGB), the compulsory medical measure in Section 1832 of the German Civil Code (BGB). There have also been some changes to the substance of the provisions — since 2023, the grounds for placement relating to treatment have explicitly required that a there is a risk of serious damage to health. That’s a higher hurdle than it used to be.

So, if you come across texts on the internet that quote Section 1906 of the German Civil Code (BGB) or refer to the „guardianship court“, please note that these sources no longer reflect the current legal situation. Since 2009, jurisdiction has lain with the guardianship court, which is a division of the local civil court.

The three routes to accommodation

Germany has three separate legal bases. They differ in terms of their purpose, the competent authority and the legal remedies available.

	Under public law (PsychKG of the federal states)	Under civil law (Section 1831 of the German Civil Code (BGB))	Criminal law (Sections 63 and 64 of the German Criminal Code)
Purpose	Defence against an imminent threat	Protection and treatment of the person concerned	Protection and rehabilitation following a criminal offence
Source of law	State law — different in every federal state	Federal law, the same for all federal states	Federal law (StGB, StPO)
Who sets them in motion?	Local public order authority, usually following referral by the social psychiatric service	The appointed carer or a person with power of attorney	Public Prosecutor’s Office and Criminal Court
Who decides?	Magistrates’ Court — it orders	Guardianship Court — it approved the guardian’s decision	Criminal Court in its judgement (Section 126a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provisional)
Procedural law	FamFG, sections 312 et seq.	FamFG, sections 312 et seq.	Code of Criminal Procedure
Possible even without supervision?	Yes	No — does this involve care or Enduring Power of Attorney in advance	Yes

 

The difference between order and approve It may sound like splitting hairs, but it has practical significance. In the case of placement under public law, the state itself makes the decision. In the case of placement under civil law, the guardian makes the initial decision — and the court then examines whether they were entitled to do so. The guardian therefore remains the decision-maker; the court acts as the supervisory body.

Civil law placement under Section 1831 of the German Civil Code (BGB)

This provision applies to people for whom a guardian has already been appointed. The guardian may only arrange for placement involving deprivation of liberty for as long as it is necessary — and only on one of two grounds (Section 1831(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB)):

1. Self-harm. Due to a mental illness or a mental or psychological disability, there is a risk that the person under care may take their own life or cause themselves significant harm.
2. Need for treatment. An examination, medical treatment or surgical procedure is necessary to avert an imminent risk of serious harm to health; this measure cannot be carried out without the person being admitted to a care facility; and, due to their illness, the person in care is unable to recognise the necessity of this or to act accordingly.

Both are reasons that in the interests of the data subject ... A risk to others — the concern that someone might harm others — justifies involuntary commitment under civil law precisely not. This is governed exclusively by state law.

Three further points that are often overlooked in everyday life:

• Placement requires authorisation from the guardianship court (Section 1831(2), first sentence, of the German Civil Code (BGB)). Without authorisation, it is only permissible if a delay would entail a risk — in which case authorisation must be obtained without delay (Section 1831(2), second sentence, of the German Civil Code (BGB)). „Without delay“ means: without culpable delay, not „sometime next week“.
• The carer must terminate the accommodation, as soon as the conditions for it cease to apply, and to notify the court of this without delay (Section 1831(3) of the German Civil Code (BGB)). Authorisation until the end of the year does not constitute permission to make full use of the entire period.
• Even a care home bed can be a deprivation of liberty. Section 1831(4) of the German Civil Code (BGB) treats as equivalent any measures by which a person in a hospital, care home or other institution is deprived of their liberty for a prolonged period or on a regular basis — whether through mechanical devices, medication or by other means. Bed rails, abdominal restraints, locked doors, sedative medication: all of these may require authorisation.

And what if there is a lasting power of attorney in place?

An authorised representative can have the same powers – but only under strict formal requirements. § 1831 para. 5 of the German Civil Code (BGB) refers to § 1820 para. 2 no. 2 BGB: the power of attorney must be granted in writing and expressly include the measures mentioned. A generalised „general power of attorney“ is not sufficient for this. Anyone wishing to make provision here should have the wording checked.

Compulsory admission under the Psychiatric Care Acts (PsychKG) of the federal states

This is where things get a bit confusing, and there is a structural reason for this: safety and security is a matter for the federal states. Each federal state has its own legislation — the PsychKG, PsychKHG or UBG, depending on the state. The basic structure is similar, but the details differ considerably. You should therefore always check the legislation of the state in which the placement is taking place.

Taking North Rhine-Westphalia as an example (Act on Assistance and Protective Measures in Cases of Mental Illness, PsychKG NRW, as amended on 1 July 2025):

The material requirement is set out in Section 11(1) of the PsychKG NRW. Compulsory admission is only permissible if, and for as long as, the behaviour of the person concerned, which is attributable to their illness, Currently there is a significant risk to the individual’s own safety or a significant risk to the important legal interests of others, which cannot be averted by any other means.

And then comes a sentence you should bear in mind: A lack of willingness to undergo treatment does not, in itself, justify compulsory admission (Section 11(1), second sentence, of the PsychKG NRW). Anyone who refuses treatment may be acting unreasonably — but unreasonableness does not constitute a danger in the legal sense.

„At present“ is also a technical term. Section 11(2) of the PsychKG NRW defines it as follows: a harmful event must be imminent, or, whilst its occurrence may be unforeseeable, it must nevertheless be expected at any time due to particular circumstances. A general concern that something might happen in the coming months is not sufficient.

The urgent case. In practice, almost every placement under public law begins as an immediate placement in accordance with Section 14 of the PsychKG NRW. In cases of imminent danger, the local public order authority may act without a prior court order — to do so, it requires a medical certificate that is no more than one day old and is based on a personal examination.

This is the most important deadline in practical terms for the whole issue: If the court has not ordered the person’s admission by the end of the day following the day on which it began, the medical director must discharge the person concerned (Section 14(2), third sentence, of the PsychKG NRW). Anyone admitted on Friday evening must therefore have a court order by Saturday evening at the latest — otherwise they must be discharged. Similar provisions exist in all federal states; they derive directly from Article 104(2), second sentence, of the Basic Law.

During the stay There are further protective provisions in force of which many of those affected are unaware: the necessity of continued hospitalisation must, as a matter of principle, be assessed by a doctor on a daily basis, justified and documented (Section 17(3) of the PsychKG NRW). Committal should take place in open settings as far as possible (Section 10(2) of the PsychKG NRW). Furthermore, the hospital operator must ensure that patients are able to spend time outdoors every day, as a rule for at least one hour (Section 16(1) of the PsychKG NRW).

Compulsory treatment is not the same as involuntary admission

This is one of the most common misunderstandings. An order for detention authorises the detention of a person. It authorises not, to treat him against his will. This requires a separate, additional court order.

• Section 1832(1) of the German Civil Code (BGB) sets out seven conditions which all together must be in place. The guardian may only consent to a compulsory medical measure if

1. it is necessary to avert an imminent serious risk to health;
2. the person receiving care is unable, due to illness or disability, to recognise the need or to act in accordance with that realisation;
3. the measure is in accordance with the wishes to be respected under Section 1827 of the German Civil Code (BGB) — in this case, an advance healthcare directive has a direct bearing on the matter;
4. a serious attempt had previously been made, with the necessary time and without exerting undue pressure, to persuade the person;
5. the damage cannot be prevented by any other, less onerous measure;
6. the expected benefits clearly outweigh the expected disadvantages; and
7. the measure is carried out as part of inpatient treatment in a hospital where the medical care provided, including any necessary follow-up treatment, is ensured.

The guardian's consent additionally requires the approval of the guardianship court (§ 1832 para. 2 BGB). If the conditions cease to apply, the guardian must revoke the consent and inform the court of this immediately (§ 1832 para. 3 BGB).

Number 4 deserves special attention. The law requires a real Attempt to persuade - not the brief conversation in the corridor. Whether this attempt took place is regularly a point of contention in appeal proceedings.

The „hospital reservation“ is currently being re-regulated

Point 7 — the requirement that compulsory treatment must, without exception, take place in a hospital — was declared by the Federal Constitutional Court, in its judgement of 26 November 2024 (1 BvL 1/24) as being partially incompatible with Article 2(2), first sentence, of the Basic Law. The case concerned a woman who lived in a care home and had to be physically restrained on a regular basis for transport to hospital, which had traumatised her.

In practice, this means: Until new regulations are introduced, the previous law shall continue to apply. The legislature must enact a constitutionally compliant provision by 31 December 2026 at the latest. The Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection submitted a draft bill on 26 February 2026 and a government bill on 27 May 2026; the legislative process had not yet been completed at the time of going to press. Anyone wishing to rely on this point in ongoing proceedings should have the current status checked.

Retention: the judge's own right of reservation

Restraint is not merely a care measure within the context of an already authorised placement. In its judgement of 24 July 2018 (2 BvR 309/15 and 2 BvR 502/16), the Federal Constitutional Court ruled: A 5-point or 7-point restraint of more than just short duration constitutes a separate deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 104(2) of the Basic Law, which must be authorised by the judicial placement order not is covered. A measure is generally considered to be short-term if it is foreseeable that it will last less than about half an hour.

The court has also drawn an organisational conclusion from this: there is a need for a daily on-call service provided by judges, covering the period from 6.00 am to 9.00 pm.

The federal states have amended their laws accordingly. In North Rhine-Westphalia, Section 20 of the PsychKG NRW provides an exhaustive set of rules governing special protective measures. Where it is foreseeable that restraint will not be merely short-term or will be repeated regularly, a court order must be obtained; if such an order cannot be obtained in good time, the application must be made immediately after the restraint begins. During restraint, a constant personal support worker must be present and vital signs must be monitored continuously.

And one point that is often overlooked: following the end of a period of detention that is not merely short-term and has not been ordered by a court, must the person concerned must be informed that they can have the legality of the measure judicially reviewed (§ 20 para. 3 PsychKG NRW).

How does the court proceedings work?

The same procedural law applies to all cases of commitment, both civil and public law: the Act on Proceedings.

The court owes you these procedural guarantees:

• Personal hearing (§ 319 FamFG). The court must hear the person concerned in person before making a decision and form a personal impression. A decision based on the case files without a hearing is the exception, not the rule — and its omission has such serious consequences in the case law of the Federal Court of Justice that it casts a stigma of unlawful deprivation of liberty on the measure as a whole.
• Guardian ad litem (Section 317 of the Family Proceedings Act (FamFG)). If it is necessary to safeguard the interests of the person concerned, the court shall appoint a guardian ad litem. This is particularly necessary where a hearing is to be dispensed with. The guardian ad litem is not the person’s legal representative, but acts as their voice in the proceedings.
• Expert report (Section 321 of the Family Proceedings Act (FamFG)). Before a placement measure is taken, a formal taking of evidence must be carried out through an expert report on the necessity of the measure. The expert must have previously examined or interviewed the affected person in person; the expert report should also cover the probable duration. The expert must be a psychiatrist and must have experience in this field. In the case of a compulsory measure, they must not be the doctor carrying out the treatment. For measures pursuant to Section 312 No. 2 or No. 4 of the FamFG, a medical certificate is sufficient.
• Termination by the court ex officio (Section 330 of the Family Proceedings Act (FamFG)). If the prerequisites are no longer met, the approval or order shall be revoked. The court will not wait for an application to do so.

How long can a placement last?

Measure	Maximum duration without extension	Legal basis
Accommodation order (main proceedings)	1 year	Section 329(1), first sentence, of the FamFG
the same where the need for accommodation is obviously long-term	2 years	Section 329(1), first sentence, of the FamFG
Compulsory medical treatment	6 weeks	Section 329(1), second sentence, of the FamFG
Interim order (placement)	6 weeks, maximum 3 months in total	§ 333(1) FamFG
Interim order (enforcement measure)	2 weeks, 6 weeks maximum in total	Section 333(2) of the FamFG

 

In practice, the first decision is almost always made via a temporary order under § 331 FamFG. The prerequisites are urgent grounds for assuming that the conditions for placement are met, an urgent need for immediate action, a medical certificate, where applicable, the appointment and hearing of a legal guardian for the proceedings – and the personal hearing of the affected person. Thus, a hearing also takes place in summary proceedings.

What legal remedies are available?

An appeal against the decision of the District Court to the Regional Court is permissible (§§ 58 ff. FamFG). The most important key data:

	Complaint	Legal challenge
Court	District Court	Federal Court of Justice
Deadline	1 month from the date of written notification; 2 weeks in the case of final decisions in proceedings for interim relief (Section 63 of the Family Proceedings Act (FamFG))	1 month from written notification (§ 71 FamFG)
Mandatory legal representation	No	Yes — a lawyer admitted to the Federal Court of Justice (§ 10(4) FamFG)
Admission required?	No	In matters of accommodation, no special leave to appeal is required if it is directed against the ordering decision (§ 70 para. 3 FamFG). Against decisions in interim injunction proceedings, it does not apply (§ 70 para. 4 FamFG).

 

The two-week deadline is the point at which most rights are lost in practice. Because the first decision is almost always an interim order, the shorter deadline almost always applies.

Who is entitled to lodge a complaint? Not only the person concerned. Section 335 of the Family Proceedings Act (FamFG) also grants the right to appeal in the interests of the person concerned to their spouse or civil partner (provided they are not permanently separated), the parents and children, if the person concerned lives with them or was living with them when the proceedings were initiated, the foster parents, a trusted person nominated by the person concerned, and the management of the institution — provided, in each case, that they were parties to the proceedings at first instance. The guardian ad litem (§ 335(2) FamFG) and the competent authority (§ 335(4) FamFG) also have their own right of appeal. Guardians and persons with power of attorney for future affairs may also lodge an appeal on behalf of the person concerned (Section 335(3) FamFG).

Two practical easements are being added: The affected person is capable of acting in proceedings regardless of their legal capacity (§ 316 FamFG) – meaning they can act themselves, even if a legal guardian has been appointed. And they can also file an appeal at the local court within whose district they are accommodated (§ 336 FamFG). Travel to the originally deciding court is not necessary.

And what if the accommodation is already finished?

This is the most common case – and a common misconception is that nothing more can be done. The opposite is true.

Pursuant to § 62 FamFG, the appellate court shall, upon application, declare that the decision of the court of first instance has violated the rights of the appellant, provided there is a legitimate interest in such a declaration. According to § 62 (2) FamFG, such an interest is generally deemed to exist in cases of serious interference with fundamental rights or where a repetition is specifically foreseeable. The Federal Court of Justice has consistently held that the order or approval of a measure involving deprivation of liberty always constitutes a serious interference with fundamental rights in this sense.

Such a finding changes nothing about the past. However, it can provide the basis for Claims for damages arising from official misconduct … it has an impact on future proceedings involving the same person — and for many of those affected, it is quite simply the rehabilitation that matters most to them.

Typical errors that make accommodation vulnerable

A number of recurring patterns can be identified in case law. Each of these points is worth examining:

• The personal hearing did not take place or did not take place properly. Perhaps because it was carried out without the appointed legal guardian or because the court did not form its own impression but merely read the clinic records.
• No guardian ad litem, although required. This is particularly critical if a hearing was not held at the same time — in which case the appointment is mandatory.
• The expert report does not support the decision. The expert did not examine the affected person personally, the report does not comment on the probable duration, or it was drawn up by the treating physician themselves during a compulsory measure.
• The attempt to persuade is missing or not documented. § 1832 (1) No. 4 of the German Civil Code (BGB) requires a serious attempt with the necessary expenditure of time. A note stating „Patient refuses“ is insufficient for this.
• The decision is too vague. He must specify the concretely approved measure and its duration. A blanket approval of „measures depriving of liberty“ for one year is not sufficient.
• The deadline for the expedited procedure has been missed. If, in the case of immediate placement under state law, no court order has been issued by the end of the following day, the person must be released.
• Seizures were carried out without a judicial decision of their own — in the belief that the accommodation order still covers them. It has not done so since 2018.
• No assessment has been made as to whether less severe measures would suffice. Both Section 1831 of the German Civil Code (BGB) and the laws of the federal states require that the risk cannot be averted by any other means.

What you can do specifically right now

1. Obtain the resolution. It contains the legal basis, the approved measure, the duration, and information on legal remedies. Nothing can be assessed without this text.
2. Make a note of the date of the announcement. The time limit runs from that date — two weeks in the case of an interim order, otherwise one month.
3. Please contact the guardian ad litem, if one has been appointed. He is familiar with the case file and has his own right of appeal.
4. Request access to the medical records. Those affected, their legal representatives, guardians ad litem and legal representatives in the proceedings have this right.
5. Document restraints and compulsory treatment with date, time and duration. These details are often the crucial starting point later on.
6. Let's check if a determination under Section 62 of the FamFG is possible., even if the measure has already ended.

If you are unsure whether a resolution is valid or if a deadline is still running, bring the documents with you to a Initial consultation. In most cases, it is possible to assess whether an appeal is worthwhile based on the resolution, expert report, and hearing minutes alone. The law firm MTH Partner in Cologne — Lawyer Helmer Tieben — reach them at 0221 80187670 or by email at info@mth-partner.de.

Provision: How you can help shape future care home accommodation

For many people, this is the really important part. Those who are capable of making decisions today can set significant courses for the future.

• Power of attorney for care. She takes precedence over judicial guardianship (§ 1814 paragraph 3 sentence 2 number 1 BGB) and thus often avoids the guardianship procedure altogether. Caution: For confinement, measures involving deprivation of liberty, and compulsory medical treatment, the power of attorney must be issued in writing and must expressly name these powers (§ 1820 paragraph 2 BGB).
• Custody arrangement. This defines, When the court should order, in the event that care does become necessary — and who expressly not.
• Advance Directive. It directly impacts the examination of involuntary treatment under § 1827 BGB: Medical involuntary treatment is only permissible if it corresponds to the will to be respected under § 1827 BGB (§ 1832 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 BGB).
• Treatment Agreement. In North Rhine-Westphalia, their conclusion is expressly to be offered and promoted (§ 2 (2) PsychKG NRW). This will record in advance which medications you tolerate, which you refuse, and who should be notified.

A common misconception at the end: The spousal representation law (§ 1358 BGB), which has been in effect since January 1, 2023, does not replace a power of attorney. It only applies when no power of attorney and no guardianship exist, it expires after six months at the latest, and it extends not on the deprivation of liberty. The representative spouse may only decide on measures involving deprivation of liberty under Section 1831 (4) of the German Civil Code (BGB) if the measure does not exceed six weeks in the individual case.

Frequently asked questions

Can someone be admitted to a psychiatric hospital without a court order? In the short term, yes, but not permanently. In cases of imminent danger, the regulatory authority may act immediately under state law, and the guardian may place someone in care without prior authorisation pursuant to § 1831 para. 2 sentence 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) if delay would be dangerous. In both cases, a judicial decision must be obtained without delay. In North Rhine-Westphalia, the affected person must be released if no court order is obtained by the end of the following day (§ 14 para. 2 PsychKG NRW).

How long can an involuntary confinement last? A temporary injunction is valid for a maximum of six weeks and may not exceed a total of three months through extensions (§ 333(1) FamFG). In the main proceedings, the measure ends after one year at the latest, or after two years in cases of apparently long-term need for accommodation (§ 329(1) FamFG). Irrespective of this, it must be terminated immediately as soon as its prerequisites cease to apply.

Can I be treated with medication against my will if I am detained? Not automatically. Accommodation permits detention, not treatment. A compulsory medical measure requires the seven conditions of § 1832 (1) BGB and a separate permit from the guardianship court (§ 1832 (2) BGB) — in the case of public-law accommodation in North Rhine-Westphalia, the prior consent of the court according to § 18 (6) PsychKG NRW.

Is it sufficient for someone to refuse treatment? No. Section 11, Paragraph 1, Sentence 2 of the PsychKG NRW expressly clarifies that a lack of willingness to undergo treatment alone does not justify detention. Furthermore, a guardian may not be appointed at all against the free will of an adult person under Section 1814, Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB).

I am a next of kin — am I even allowed to defend myself? Under the conditions of § 335 FamFG, yes, in their own right. Spouses and civil partners, parents and children under certain residency conditions, foster parents, and nominated persons of trust can lodge an appeal if they were involved in the first instance proceedings.

The accommodation has long since ended. Is a complaint still worthwhile? Yes. Under Section 62 of the FamFG, the appellate court can, upon application, determine that the decision has violated your rights. In cases of deprivation of liberty, the necessary legitimate interest is regularly present according to the case law of the Federal Court of Justice, as it always involves a serious infringement of fundamental rights.

Does all of this also apply to children and young people? No, in some cases, different rules apply there. The accommodation of minors by their legal guardians is governed by § 1631b of the German Civil Code (BGB), and procedurally by § 151 nos. 6 and 7 as well as § 167 of the Code of Family Procedure (FamFG). The Family Court is responsible.

This post does not replace legal advice for individual cases. It reflects the state of legislation and case law as of July 2026. The law concerning compulsory treatment is currently undergoing change; the regional laws differ significantly. Have your specific case reviewed by a solicitor.

If you are experiencing a mental health crisis: The TelefonSeelsorge offers free and anonymous support around the clock at 0800 111 0 111, 0800 111 0 222 and 116 123, as well as via chat at online.telefonseelsorge.de. In case of acute danger, please call emergency services on 112.