CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 24 juillet 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDCD9A5E { margin-left:13.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     556   24.7.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RUTTEN v. THE NETHERLANDS   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing judgment [1] in the case Rutten v. the Netherlands (application number 32605/96). The Court held:   by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights; unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the Convention;   The Court held unanimously that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for any non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant and, under Article 41 of the Convention, awarded the applicant 7,000 Netherlands Guilders less 1,354.23 Euros for legal costs and expenses. (The judgment exists only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The case concerns an application brought by a Dutch national, Ronald Rutten, who was born in 1970 and lives in Doetinchem (the Netherlands).   On 13 August 1992, the Arnhem Court of Appeal convicted the applicant of attempted homicide and sentenced him to eight months' imprisonment. The Court also imposed a post-sentence confinement order with compulsory psychiatric treatment, which took effect on 4 September 1992. It was due to expire on 4 September 1994. By decision of 9 September 1994, the Arnhem Regional Court prolonged this post-sentence confinement order by one year until 4 September 1995.   On 19 July 1995, the public prosecutor filed a request with the Arnhem Regional Court to prolong the post-sentence confinement order by one year. By decision of 6 October 1995, the Arnhem Regional Court prolonged the order by one year.   The applicant filed an appeal with the Arnhem Court of Appeal on 11 October 1995.   In its decision of 29 January 1996, the court noted that the decision of 6 October 1995 had been given seventeen days after the expiry of the two months’ time-limit provided for in Article 509t of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It held that the Regional Court could and should have scheduled a hearing date before the expiry of the time-limit, but that its failure to observe the time-limit entailed neither the inadmissibility of the prosecution's request, nor the incompetence of the Regional Court to examine this request, nor the expiry of the applicant’s post-sentence confinement.   The Court of Appeal decided to quash the decision of 6 October 1995 and, after having noted the advice of the psychiatric institution where the applicant was receiving treatment and an expert opinion concerning the applicant's medical condition, the Court of Appeal decided to prolong the applicant’s post-sentence confinement by one year.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 28 May 1996. On 1 November 1998, the case was transferred to the European Court of Human Rights. The Court (First Section) declared the application admissible on 28 March 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President , Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Gaukur Jörundsson (Icelandic), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Rait Maruste (Estonian), judges ,   and also Michael O’Boyle , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complains that his rights guaranteed under Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights have been violated. He claims that the decision to prolong his post ‑ sentence confinement was not given speedily under a procedure prescribed by law, in that, from 4 September to 6 October 1995, there was no judicial decision authorising his detention.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 of the Convention   The Court considered that the applicant’s detention had not become unlawful despite the expiry of the post-sentence confinement order, since the situation arising in the present case had been provided for in Article 509q of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which stated that the order remained in force until a final decision on the request for prolongation had been taken. The Court was further of the opinion that the applicant’s detention between the expiry of the post-sentence confinement order and the determination by the Arnhem Regional Court of the request for the prolongation thereof could not be regarded as involving an arbitrary deprivation of liberty. There had, therefore, been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. However, noting that the request for prolongation of the post-sentence confiment order had been determined by the Arnhem Regional Court more than two months and seventeen days after the date on which the prolongation request had been filed, that the decision of the Regional Court was taken more than one month after the order had expired, and that it then took the Arnhem Court of Appeal more than three months to determine the applicant’s subsequent appeal, the Court found that the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention had not been decided speedily as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. Accordingly, there had been a violation of this provision.   Judge Maruste expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.   In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer the case to the Grand Chamber. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.