CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 novembre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s25B97BCD { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6CF83D49 { margin-left:11.67pt; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sC4A995C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; font-size:8pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   Published on 29 November 2021   THIRD SECTION Application no. 18875/19 Tibor BEREGSZASZY against Switzerland and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 8 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE These five cases concern the applicants’ detention for reasons of public safety ( Sicherheitshaft ) during various periods between 2018 and 2020 (see table below) which had been ordered on the basis of provisions from the Code of Criminal Procedure governing pre-trial detention, applied by analogy, pending court rulings either on requests for an extension of the institutional therapeutic measure ( stationäre therapeutische Massnahme ) imposed on the applicants several years earlier (nos. 18875/19, 17715/20, 42059/20) and/or on requests for the applicants’ internment ( Verwahrung ) (nos. 30384/19, 17715/20, 40876/20). COMMON QUESTION 1.     Were the applicants deprived of their liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was their detention for reasons of public safety during the relevant periods (see table below) ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (see I.L. v. Switzerland , no. 72939/16, 3 December 2019)?     CASE SPECIFIC QUESTION 2.     Nos. 30384/19, 42059/20 : Did the applicants have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for their detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 § 1, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention?     APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant name date of birth Represented by Impugned detention period Total of days of alleged unlawful detention Detention for reasons of public safety pending a court ruling on a request for:   18875/19 02/04/2019 Tibor BEREGSZASZY 1970 Stefan SUTER 05/01/2019 – 19/08/2019 226 Extension of institutional therapeutic measure   30384/19 27/05/2019 Rene BALMER 1974 Alain JOSET 06/08/2018 – 22/05/2019 289 Internment   17715/20 09/04/2020 U.B. 1949 Stephan BERNARD Rafael STUDER 18/01/2018 – 27/03/2020 799 Extension of institutional therapeutic measure and subsequently internment   40876/20 11/09/2020 Roy BILL 1970 Kathrin GRUBER 02/09/2019 – 18/05/2020 259 Internment   42059/20 11/09/2020 Edwin HOFMANN 1967 Silvio BUERGI 01/01/2020 – 20/05/2020 140 Extension of institutional therapeutic measure