Case Law

The Case Law database provides access to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments, decisions, communicated cases, advisory opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note), the European Commission of Human Rights (decisions and reports), the Committee of Ministers (resolutions), and the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Vulnerable Accused and Suspected Persons (Measure E) (52 Entries)

Displaying 1-10 of (52)


CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 23 Dec 2014
STATE:
Latvia
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 5.1, Article 4.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to liberty and security. Persons of unsound mind.



CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 23 Dec 2014
STATE:
Switzerland
OUTCOME:
No violation
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to liberty and security. Persons of unsound mind. Arbitrary detention.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleges that his detention did not have a valid legal basis, that the extension of the in-patient treatment order for five years was not justified and that the decision in question breached the principle of proportionality and was arbitrary, since it was ordered in the absence of an independent expert report enabling his dangerousness to be reviewed.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.1

CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 25 Nov 2014
STATE:
Poland
OUTCOME:
Violations of Article 5.1, 5.4
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to liberty and security. Persons of unsound mind. Review of lawfulness of detention



CASE DATE:
Thursday, 13 Nov 2014
STATE:
Romania
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 5.1(b) and (e), 4, 6.1 and 3(c). No violation of Article 8.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Person of unsound mind. Right to liberty and security. Lawful arrest or detention. Speediness of review. Right to a fair trial. Right to a defence. Right to respect for private and family life.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant alleges that her deprivation of liberty and subsequently in the psychiatric hospital was unlawful and that the decision to order her confinement was not reviewed by the courts. She further complains that the criminal proceedings against her took an unreasonably long time and that the courts failed to hear her in person. Finally, she is complaining that the authorities contacted the press when she was taken by force to the psychiatric hospital, resulting in the publication of her photos in various newspapers, and that she was ill-treated by the police officers who took her to the hospital.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.1, 5.4, 6.1, 6.3(c), 3, 8

CASE DATE:
Monday, 27 Oct 2014
STATE:
Poland
OUTCOME:
Communicated case; questions to the parties
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to liberty and security. Persons of unsound mind. Arbitrary detention.



CASE DATE:
Tuesday, 21 Oct 2014
STATE:
Germany
OUTCOME:
Decision; inadmissible.
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to liberty and security. Unsound mind. Treatment of psychological disorder. Right to life. Right to a fair trial.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complained that his continuous confinement in a psychiatric clinic was disproportionately long. Furthermore, he claimed that the proceedings concerning the judicial review of his continued detention had been unfair, as the competent courts had not taken all relevant aspects into account, had not followed the recommendation of the external psychiatric expert to release him and as the expertise of the internal doctors of the medical clinic was wrong.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    2, 5, 8

CASE DATE:
Thursday, 17 Jul 2014
STATE:
Ukraine
OUTCOME:
Violation of 5.1(c) and (e), 5.3 and 5.4
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to liberty and security. Lawful arrest or detention. Bringing before competent legal authority. Persons of unsound mind. Length of pre-trial detention. Reasonableness of pre-trial detention.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant made a number of complaints, alleging that part of his pre-trial detention had been unlawful and without judicial review, that his total pre-trial detention – lasting more than three years – had been excessively long and that his confinement in a psychiatric hospital had been unnecessary and ordered by the authorities so as to punish him for his political activities.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.1(c) and (e), 5.3, 5.4, 8

CASE DATE:
Monday, 30 Jun 2014
STATE:
Croatia
OUTCOME:
Communicated case; questions to the parties
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to liberty and security. Persons of unsound mind. Review of lawfulness of detention.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complains about the procedure and decisions on his internment in the psychiatric hospital. He also complains about the lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings against him, in that all his evidence by which he attempted to refute the expert report indicating his psychiatric internment had been dismissed.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.1, 5.4, 6.1

CASE DATE:
Wednesday, 4 Jun 2014
STATE:
Germany
OUTCOME:
Communicated case; questions to the party
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to liberty and security. Persons of unsound mind. Review of lawfulness of detention.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his preventive detention beyond the former statutory ten-year maximum duration no longer had a legal basis. He submits in that context that he has no longer drunk alcohol since he had been taken into detention thirty years ago and was not, and had never been, an alcoholic. Furthermore, he was not of unsound mind at the time of his offences and his alleged dissocial personality disorder could not be classified as a mental disorder.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.1, 7.1

CASE DATE:
Sunday, 18 May 2014
STATE:
Switzerland
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 5.4
SUBJECT MATTER:

Right to liberty and security. Mental disorder. Requirement to prepare a fresh independent medical opinion on a detainee’s mental health when examining a request for his release from detention.


  • DETAIL:

    The applicant argued that his continued confinement could only be compatible with the Convention if it was reliably shown, by means of objective medical expertise, that he was suffering from a true mental disorder of a kind or degree warranting such confinement, as the validity of continued confinement depended upon the persistence of such a disorder. He complained that the national authorities were required to carry out verifications of the lawfulness of his detention at regular intervals,


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5.4

Page 2 of 6 pages  < 1 2 3 4 >  Last ›

JUSTICIA European Rights Network