CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 27 November 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 22463/23 Gabriel ALAAEDIN against Sweden lodged on 26 May 2023 communicated on 6 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 14 November 2019, by virtue of sections 1(3), 3(1) and 6(2) of the Act with Special Provisions on the Care of Young Persons ( lagen [1990:52] med särskilda bestämmelser om vård av unga ), the applicant, who at the time was 18 years old, was taken into compulsory public care by the Social Council to prevent risks to his health or development. The decision included placement in a special residential home. According to the applicant, the public care order ceased on 12   October 2020. The public care order was brought before the courts. The applicant argued that it was in violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention since the notion of a “minor” in sub-paragraph (d) could not encompass a person who was 18 years old or older. The courts found against him partly because, according to domestic law (as referred to above), a person over the age of 18 but below the age of 20 could also be taken into compulsory care. Subsequently the applicant lodged a complaint with the Chancellor of Justice, seeking compensation. On 22 March 2023 the Chancellor of Justice dismissed the claim, finding that there had been no violation of Article 5. The applicant complains that he was deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention since sub-paragraph (d) of that provision was not applicable in light of his age.       QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, in the light of his age, did the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty fall within the scope of Article 5 § 1(d)?