CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juillet 2008

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 111 August-September 2008 M. v. Germany (dec.) - 19359/04 Decision 1.7.2008 [Section V] Article 5 Article 5-1 Deprivation of liberty Lawful arrest or detention Applicant’s continued placement in preventive detention beyond the maximum period authorised at the time of his placement: admissible   Article 7 Article 7-1 Heavier penalty Retrospective extension of preventive detention from a maximum of ten years to an unlimited period of time: admissible   In 1986 the applicant was convicted of attempted murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. In addition to giving him a prison sentence, the trial court ordered his placement in preventive detention. This measure was considered necessary in view of the fact that the applicant was strongly inclined to commit offences which seriously damaged his victims’ physical integrity. He had already been convicted and imprisoned on numerous occasions, notably for attempted murder, theft, assault and blackmail. In the court’s opinion, he was liable to commit spontaneous acts of violence and was a danger to the public. The applicant finished serving his prison sentence in August 1991 and has been in preventive detention since that date. In April 2001 the competent court refused to release him on licence, but it ordered that he be kept in preventive detention beyond 8 September 2001, the date the maximum ten-year period previously authorised for such detention expired. In doing so, it applied the Criminal Code as amended by a law which had entered into force in January 1998. It stated that the amended provision was applicable also to prisoners placed in preventive detention prior to its entry into force. The court added that, on account of the gravity of the applicant’s criminal record and the likelihood of his committing further offences, his continued placement in preventive detention was not disproportionate. The Court of Appeal confirmed that the applicant’s dangerousness necessitated his continued preventive detention and stated it was not contrary to the prohibition of retrospective provisions in the criminal law. The applicant lodged an unsuccessful constitutional complaint. The Federal Constitutional Court held, in particular, that the abolition of the maximum period of detention, and the application of this measure to criminals who had been placed in preventive detention prior to the entry into force of the new provision and had not yet finished serving their sentences, were compatible with the Constitution. It also considered that the retrospective application of the amended provision of the Criminal Code was not disproportionate. Admissible under Article 5   §   1 and Article 7 of the Convention.   © 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