![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
European Court of Human Rights |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> SCHONBROD v. GERMANY - 48038/06 [2011] ECHR 1974 (24 November 2011) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1974.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1974 |
[New search] [Contents list] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
(Application no. 48038/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
24 November 2011
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Schönbrod v. Germany,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Dean Spielmann,
President,
Elisabet Fura,
Karel
Jungwiert,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Mark
Villiger,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Angelika Nußberger,
judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 November 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. The applicant’s previous convictions and the order for his preventive detention
B. The proceedings at issue
1. The decision of the Aachen Regional Court
2. The decision of the Cologne Court of Appeal
3. The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. The order of preventive detention by the sentencing court
B. Remand in preventive detention
C. Judicial review and duration of preventive detention and of supervision of conduct
D. Recent case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court on preventive detention
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE CONVENTION
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; (...)”
A. Admissibility
1. The parties’ submissions
2. The Court’s assessment
B. Merits
1. The parties’ submissions
(a) The applicant
(b) The Government
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) Recapitulation of the relevant principles
(i) Grounds for deprivation of liberty
“86. Article 5 § 1 sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) contain an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for deprivation of liberty, and no deprivation of liberty will be lawful unless it falls within one of those grounds (see, inter alia, Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, § 96, Series A no. 39; Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 49, ECHR 2000 III; and Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, § 43, ECHR 2008 ...). ...
87. For the purposes of sub-paragraph (a) of Article 5 § 1, the word “conviction”, having regard to the French text (“condamnation”), has to be understood as signifying both a finding of guilt after it has been established in accordance with the law that there has been an offence (see Guzzardi, cited above, § 100), and the imposition of a penalty or other measure involving deprivation of liberty (see Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, § 35, Series A no. 50).
88. Furthermore, the word “after” in sub-paragraph (a) does not simply mean that the “detention” must follow the “conviction” in point of time: in addition, the “detention” must result from, follow and depend upon or occur by virtue of the “conviction” (see Van Droogenbroeck, cited above, § 35). In short, there must be a sufficient causal connection between the conviction and the deprivation of liberty at issue (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 42, Series A no. 114; Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, § 64, ECHR 2002 IV; Waite v. the United Kingdom, no. 53236/99, § 65, 10 December 2002; and Kafkaris v. Cyprus [GC], no. 21906/04, § 117, ECHR 2008 ...). However, with the passage of time, the link between the initial conviction and a further deprivation of liberty gradually becomes less strong (compare Van Droogenbroeck, cited above, § 40, and Eriksen, cited above, § 78). The causal link required by sub-paragraph (a) might eventually be broken if a position were reached in which a decision not to release or to re-detain was based on grounds that were inconsistent with the objectives of the initial decision (by a sentencing court) or on an assessment that was unreasonable in terms of those objectives. In those circumstances, a detention that was lawful at the outset would be transformed into a deprivation of liberty that was arbitrary and, hence, incompatible with Article 5 (compare Van Droogenbroeck, cited above, § 40; Eriksen, cited above, § 78; and Weeks, cited above, § 49).”
(ii) “Lawful” detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”
(b) Application of these principles to the present case
(i) Grounds for deprivation of liberty
(ii) “Lawful” detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
B. Costs and expenses
C. Default interest
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months of the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention,
(i) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 1,015.96 (one thousand and fifteen euros, ninety-six cents), inclusive of value-added tax, plus any other tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 24 November 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Dean Spielmann
Registrar President