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.


CASE DATE:
Wednesday, 25 Feb 2015
STATE:
Poland
OUTCOME:
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty, Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind) No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention)
  • SUBJECT MATTER:

    (Art. 5) Right to liberty and security (Art. 5-1) Deprivation of liberty (Art. 5-1-e) Persons of unsound mind (Art. 5-4) Review of lawfulness of detention


    DETAIL:

    I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 46. The applicant complained that her compulsory placement and continued deprivation of liberty in a social care home amounted to a violation of her right to liberty, as provided for in Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant part of which reads as follows: “1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (e) the lawful detention of persons ... of unsound mind...” 47. The Government contested that argument in general terms. II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION 72. The applicant complained, in essence, that she had no effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness and the necessity of her continued stay in the social care home. She relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention which provides as follows: “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.” 73. The Government contested that argument.


    COURT:
    ECHR
    ARTICLE:
    5, 5-1, 5-1-e, 5-4

JUSTICIA European Rights Network