CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 septembre 1998

.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 } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sA2C8F410 { width:22.11pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .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. September 1998 Erkalo v. the Netherlands - 23807/94 Judgment 2.9.1998 Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-e Persons of unsound mind Continued detention of mentally ill person in spite of expiry of initial placement order: violation   [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions ). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Reiteration of general principles concerning exhaustion of domestic remedies. Applicant could not be faulted for failing to institute summary proceedings – under assumption public prosecutor’s request was lodged and processed in accordance with relevant domestic procedure – probable that application to institute summary civil proceedings would be refused since decision of Regional Court imminent. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Since applicant was convicted by competent court and placed at government’s disposal in psychiatric institution, detention during period under consideration falls under Article 5 § 1 (a) and (e) of the Convention. Domestic case-law recognises that only in certain circumstances State obliged to terminate placement order after expiry of statutory period and without decision on extension having been taken – while reasoning of Regional Court would appear to introduce element of uncertainty in application of Article 509o § 1 of Code of Criminal Procedure, applicant’s placement remained lawful under domestic law. However, lawfulness of extension of applicant’s placement not decisive – detention must be in conformity with purpose of Article 5 § 1 of Convention (protection from arbitrariness) – for eighty-two days applicant’s placement not based on any judicial decision – lack of adequate safeguards to ensure applicant’s release would not be unreasonably delayed – Regional Court failed to take into account the interest of applicant in obtaining timely review of request – although relevant authorities aware placement order due to expire no steps taken to verify whether Regional Court received request and hearing date set – onus to ensure request for extension of placement order examined in time on competent authorities and not person concerned. Conclusion : violation (eight votes to one).   III.   ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION Applicant’s argument on lack of speedy decision on public prosecutor’s request akin to allegation of breach of Article 5 § 1. Conclusion : not necessary to examine complaint (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLES 5 § 4 AND 13 OF THE CONVENTION Complaint not maintained before Court. Conclusion : not necessary to examine complaint of its own motion (unanimously). V.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage Pecuniary damage: no award. Non-pecuniary damage: finding of violation constitutes sufficient just satisfaction. B.   Costs and expenses: Awarded in full. Conclusion : respondent State to pay applicant specified sum in respect of costs and expenses (unanimously).   © 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