CEDH · PRESS;ADMISSIBILITYDECISIONS;ENG — 26 novembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s51D316E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s289A4F99 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt }     890 26.11.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar Decision Meixner v. Germany (application no. 26958/07)   REJECTION OF AN APPLICATION CONCERNING THE REFUSAL TO RELEASE A DETAINEE ON PROBATION   Principal facts   The applicant, Rolf Friedrich Meixner, is a German national who was born in 1937 and is currently detained in Schwalmstadt. In 1986 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for a number of offences, among them triple murder, which he had committed while on probation.     After he had served fifteen years of his life sentence, thereby becoming eligible for parole, the applicant requested a suspension of his sentence. In February 2006 the Gießen Regional Court refused the request, primarily relying on an expert’s opinion which concluded that there was a high risk of the applicant again committing crimes when released. The decision was subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal. In July 2007 the Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit a constitutional complaint by the applicant for adjudication, finding no fault in the lower courts’ decisions.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   The applicant primarily complained that he had not been released on parole but that he had been ordered to remain in prison at least until he had served twenty-five years. In this respect he relied on Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 October 2007.   The decision was given on 3 November 2009 by a Chamber composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President, Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”) Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges,   and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.         Decision of the Court   The Court considered that the applicant’s complaint about the refusal of his request for probation had to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention alone. The imposition of an irreducible life sentence on an adult offender could raise an issue under Article 3. However, if national law provided for the possibility to review the sentence with a view to its commutation or the conditional release of the prisoner, this was sufficient to satisfy that Article.   The Court moreover observed that States had a duty under the Convention to take measures to protect the public from violent crime. The applicant’s personality, in particular the fact that he continued to present a danger, had been a key element of the refusal to suspend the sentence on probation. The applicant was not deprived of hope of being released again, as domestic law provided for a parole system and the applicant could lodge a new request to be released on probation. There was nothing to suggest that the continued detention caused the applicant considerable mental or physical suffering.   The Court therefore concluded that the refusal to release the applicant on parole could not be qualified as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3. It moreover found that the material submitted did not disclose any appearance of a violation of other Articles of the Convention, as alleged by the applicant. His complaints were thus manifestly ill-founded and hence inadmissible.   ***   The decision is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Nina Salomon (tel + 33 (0)3   90 21 49 79) Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) or Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.