CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 1 juillet 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   488 1.7.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER HEARING MÜCKE v. GERMANY   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Chamber hearing today Tuesday 1 July 2008 at 9 a.m. , on the admissibility and merits in the case of Mücke v. Germany (application no.   19359/04).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     The applicant   The applicant, Reinhard Mücke, is a German national who was born in 1957 and is currently detained in Schwalmstadt (Germany).   Summary of the facts   The case concerns the applicant’s continued placement in preventive detention for more than ten years, the maximum period authorised at the time of his placement, on the basis of an amendment to the Criminal Code which entered into force when he had already been held in preventive detention for more than six years.   In November 1986 the Marburg Regional Court convicted the applicant of attempted murder and aggravated robbery and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. It further 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, specifically for attempted murder, joint theft, dangerous assault and blackmail. In the court’s opinion, it was to be expected that he would repeat spontaneous acts of violence, and he was dangerous for the public. The applicant finished serving his prison sentence in August 1991 and has been in preventive detention since that date.   The courts refused to suspend on probation the applicant’s placement in preventive detention. In April 2001 the Marburg Regional Court again refused to allow suspension. In addition, it ordered that the applicant be kept in preventive detention beyond 8 September 2001, date of expiry of the maximum ten-year period authorised for such detention by the Criminal Code as applicable when the applicant committed the offences, was convicted and placed in preventive detention. The court applied the Criminal Code as amended by a law which entered into force on 31 January 1998. It stated that this new text was applicable also to prisoners whose placement in preventive detention had been ordered prior to the law’s entry into force. The court added that, on account of the gravity of the applicant’s criminal record and the likelihood of future offences, his continued placement in preventive detention was not disproportionate.   In October 2001 Frankfurt am Main Court of Appeal confirmed that the applicant’s dangerousness necessitated his continued placement, and stated that this continued placement was not contrary to the prohibition of retrospective provisions.   The applicant lodged an unsuccessful constitutional complaint. In a judgment of 5 February 2004, 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 Basic Law. It considered that the retrospective application of the amended text of the Criminal Code was not disproportionate.   Complaints   Relying on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complains about his preventive detention, alleging that, on completion of the ten-year period, he was no longer lawfully detained after conviction by a competent court for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (a). Under Article 7 (no punishment without law), he claims that he was victim of an infringement of the right to not be imposed with a heavier penalty than the one applicable at the time of his offence.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24   May 2004.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by a Chamber composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Renate Jaeger (German), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [1] , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), judges , Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgarian), Rait Maruste (Estonian), substitute judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Almut Wittling-Vogel , Agent ,   Heinz Schöch , Counsel ,   Michael Bornmann , Bernhard Böhm , Bernd Bösert , Gabriele Launhardt , Jörg Bachmann , Advisers ;   Applicant :   Bernhard Schroer , Alexander H. Stopp , Counsel ,   Tobias Schulla , Adviser .   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. A decision on admissibility, followed if appropriate by a judgment, will be delivered at a later date [2] .   Press contacts Adrien Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.