CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 mars 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 150 March 2012 Rangelov v. Germany - 5123/07 Judgment 22.3.2012 [Section V] Article 14 Discrimination Refusal of social therapy or relaxation of conditions of preventive detention due to applicant’s foreign nationality: violation   Facts – The applicant, a Bulgarian national, had a string of convictions for theft and burglary. The German authorities ordered his expulsion immediately after he finished serving the last of his prison sentences in June 2003. However, since that date he has been held in preventive detention on the grounds that he has shown no remorse for his crimes and is therefore very likely to commit further offences. Although social therapy was recommended in his case, he was unable to participate because he was a foreign national. For the same reason it has not been possible to relax the conditions of his detention. In his application to the European Court, the applicant complained, inter alia , of discrimination on grounds of his nationality. Law – Article 14 in conjunction with Article 5 §   1: In determining whether the applicant had been treated differently in relation to the order for execution of his preventive detention on grounds of his nationality, regard had to be had to the reasons given by the domestic courts for making that order. Although they had found that the applicant would have to successfully complete social therapy if he wished to establish he was no longer a threat to the public, this had been refused in view of his imminent expulsion. The domestic courts had also observed that the prison authorities were unlikely to relax the conditions of his preventive detention since he was not a German national. The Court was not convinced by the Government’s argument that the applicant’s attitude and conduct had been decisive for the refusal of therapy. The domestic administrative practice clearly showed that prisoners against whom an enforceable expulsion order had been issued were excluded from eligibility for transfer to a social therapeutic institution and since this had been made clear to the applicant, there must have been little incentive for him to change his attitude. The Court therefore concluded that the applicant had been treated differently compared to prisoners in a comparable situation on the grounds of his nationality. The reason given for excluding foreign nationals from social therapy was that the therapists were not in a position to prepare them for life in another country with unfamiliar living conditions. The apparent aim of not relaxing the conditions of detention of foreign nationals appeared to be to prevent them from absconding and to ensure the execution of the expulsion order. The Court reiterated, however, that very weighty reasons were required to justify a difference in treatment on the basis of nationality. The refusal to grant the applicant the therapeutic measures usually needed to obtain suspension of an order for preventive detention had not been compensated for by offering him different therapy or any other measures adapted to his situation. In such circumstances, the difference in treatment of the applicant had lacked objective justification. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 6,000 in respect of non pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed. (See also Ostermünchner v. Germany , no.   36035/04, 22   March 2012)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes