CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mars 2017

.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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 12 May 2014   FOURTH SECTION Application no 11537/11 Günter LORENZ against Austria lodged on 15 February 2011   The facts and complaints in this application have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Were the procedures concerning the periodic review of the applicant’s further detention in an institution for mentally ill offenders during the period between 2010 and 2013 “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (Article 5 § 1 of the Convention)? Have these proceedings been fair?   2.     Did the domestic courts, when they decided on the continued detention of the applicant, dispose of sufficient elements warranting the conclusion that he was still dangerous to the public and his detention was still necessary as a result thereof? Have the expert opinions, which the domestic courts have based their review decisions on during the relevant review period between 2010 and 2013, provided a sufficient factual basis for deciding on the continuation of the applicant’s detention? (Reference is made to the cases of Dörr v. Germany (dec.), no. 2894/08, 22 January 2013; H.W. v. Germany , no. 17167/11, § 107, 19 September 2013; Ruiz Rivera v.   Switzerland , no. 8300/06, § 60, 18 February 2014; and Klingenbuß v.   Germany , no. 53157/11, § 48).   3.     Despite the domestic courts’ recommendation (see, for example, the decision by the Krems a.d. Donau Regional Court ( Landesgericht ) of 7   December 2010), the applicant has not been transferred to the Wien ‑ Mittersteig prison during the review periods in question. Have the domestic authorities made any efforts to transfer the applicant there?