Cas clinique assorti d’une recherche bibliographique et documentaire axée sur la jurisprudence en matière de recours contre les hospitalisations à la demande d’un tiers (HDT) du fait des conditions de l’admission, la présente étude analyse les caractéristiques de la demande de tiers validant ou invalidant la demande d’HDT et, par voie de conséquence, l’admission du patient sous ce mode d’hospitalisation sous contrainte. Les résultats sont arborés de façon analytique, discursive, faisant à dessein l’impasse sur une évaluation quantitative illustrative. L’établissement de la demande, condition sine qua non de validité du processus d’HDT, s’avère parfois une étape ardue, source de grandes difficultés et d’invalidations de plusieurs hospitalisations sans consentement, sinon de poursuites judiciaires.

The present study aims at analyzing the attributes of the applicant validating or invalidating the request for hospitalization of a third party (hospitalisation à la demande d’un tiers — HDT) and thus, the hospitalization of the patient under that rule. Based on a clinical case of initial refusal of a hospital management to pronounce the hospitalization at the request of a third party of a patient, followed by its retraction, this study re-examine the text of the law No. 90-527, of June 27, 1990, modified, relating to the rights and the protection of people hospitalized for mental disorders and to their conditions of hospitalization, in particular the article L. 3212-1 of the public health code, taking into account its original version, the notices, the circulars, various administrative documents by reconsidering the practical scope of the article, in support of the precedents. Fulfilling the third party request for hospitalization, a compulsory component for validity of the process of hospitalization at the request of a third party, proves sometimes to be a difficult stage, source of great teething troubles and cancellation of many hospitalizations, not to say start of legal proceedings.