CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 mars 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }   Communicated on 8 March 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 30860/15 Jörg KEMPKES against Germany lodged on 18 June 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The present application concerns the compliance of the applicant’s preventive detention with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The domestic court of first instance took its decision of 19 March 2013 some sixteen months after the expiry, on 16 November 2011, of the two-year time-limit under Article 67e of the Criminal Code for judicial review of whether the applicant’s preventive detention was still necessary. Relying on the Court’s judgments in the cases of Schönbrod v. Germany (no. 48038/06, 24   November 2011) and H.W. v. Germany (no. 17167/11, 19 September 2013), the applicant claims that the continuation of his preventive detention was unlawful and thus breached his right to liberty in view of the domestic court’s failure to comply with that time-limitл   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   In particular, having regard to the Court’s case-law (see notably Schönbrod v. Germany , no. 48038/06, 24 November 2011; and H.W.   v.   Germany , no. 17167/11, 19 September 2013), was his preventive detention “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”, in particular in the period between 16 November 2011 and 19 March 2013, in view of the domestic court’s failure to comply with the statutory time-limit for periodic review of the necessity of that detention?