CEDHCASELAW;CLIN;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 mars 2006
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:002-3424
- Date
- 7 mars 2006
- Publication
- 7 mars 2006
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleViolation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention;Speediness of review);Non-pecuniary damage - award
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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. 84 March 2006 Van Glabeke v. France   - 38287/02 Judgment 7.3.2006 [Section II] Article 5 Article 5-4 Speediness of review Applications for immediate release from medical confinement never examined: violation   Facts :   The applicant was compulsorily admitted to a psychiatric hospital for nineteen days at the request of a third party. While she was in hospital, first her mother and then an association lodged applications with the relevant authorities for her immediate release. A different authority, namely the public prosecutor’s office, responded to the applications, but took no action. The relevant judge, to whom a lawful application had been made, failed to act. Law : Article 5(4) – No court had ever ruled on the two applications for immediate release lodged with the President of the tribunal de grande instance on the applicant’s behalf. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant a specified sum for non-pecuniary damage.   © 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  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;CLIN;ENG
- Date
- 7 mars 2006
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:002-3424
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel