CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 avril 2018

.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 11 April 2018   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 9608/16 Michael Friedrich Martin SCHNEPP against Germany lodged on 15 February 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The 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 17 November 2015, by which it ordered the applicant’s preventive detention to continue, more than five months after the expiry, on 3 June 2015, of the one-year time-limit under Article 67e of the Criminal Code for judicial review of whether the applicant’s preventive detention was still necessary. The applicant claims that the continuation of his preventive detention was unlawful and thus breached his right to liberty in view of the domestic courts’ failure to comply with the statutory time ‑ limit. QUESTION 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 4 June 2015 and 17 November 2015, in view of the domestic courts’ failure to comply with the statutory time-limit for periodic review of the necessity of that detention?