CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 juin 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s48E1953 { width:187.27pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 52808/12 and 10841/13 Uwe Alfons BEER against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17   June   2014 as a Committee composed of:   Ganna Yudkivska, President,   Angelika Nußberger,   André Potocki, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 9 August 2012 and 29   January 2013 respectively, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Uwe Alfons Beer, is a German national, who was born in 1979 and is currently detained in the Straubing Preventive Detention Facility. He was represented before the Court by Mr G. Haberl, a lawyer practising in Schwandorf. The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by one of their Agents, Mr H.-J., Behrens, of the Federal Ministry of Justice. The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In two consecutive sets of proceedings, the Regensburg Regional Court decided that the applicant’s preventive detention, ordered retrospectively by the Weiden Regional Court on 23 October 2008, was to continue. The Regensburg Regional Court’s decisions of 1 September 2011 (application no. 52808/12) and of 14 June 2012 (application no. 10841/13) took into account the stricter criteria set up by the Federal Constitutional Court in its judgment of 4 May 2011 (file nos. 2 BvR 2365/09 and others) for retrospective preventive detention to continue during a transitional period until 31 May 2013. The Regional Court’s decisions were confirmed by the Nuremberg Court of Appeal and by the Federal Constitutional Court (files nos. 2 BvR 32/12 and 2 BvR 2183/12) respectively. The applicant’s detention was executed in a separate wing of Straubing Prison for persons in preventive detention until 18 June 2013, when he was transferred to the Straubing Preventive Detention Facility, a separate building for persons in preventive detention on the premises of Straubing Prison. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 and Article 7 § 1 of the Convention about the continued execution of his retrospective preventive detention. THE LAW Given that the two applications at issue both concern orders for the prolongation of the same applicant’s preventive detention and thus related subject-matters, the Court decides that the applications shall be joined (see Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). On 3 April 2014 the Court received the following declaration from the Government: “I, Mr Hans-Jörg Behrens, Agent, declare that the Government of Germany offer to pay Uwe Alfons Beer, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above ‑ mentioned cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights, 14,000 (fourteen thousand) euros to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. This shall satisfy any and all claims against Germany (i.e. the Federal Government and the Länder) by Mr Beer resulting from placement in preventive detention in violation of the Convention. This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the cases out of its list of cases. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” On 23 April 2014 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant’s counsel: “I, Gunther Haberl, note that the Government of Germany are prepared to pay Uwe Alfons Beer, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned cases pending before the European Court of Human Rights, EUR 14,000 (fourteen thousand) euros to cover any and all pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. This shall satisfy any and all claims against Germany (i.e. the Federal Government and the Länder) by Mr Beer resulting from placement in preventive detention in violation of the Convention. This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court to strike the cases out of its list of cases. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Having consulted my client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against Germany in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the applications. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention. Stephen Phillips   Ganna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar   President