![]() |
[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 >> REINER v. GERMANY - 28527/08 [2012] ECHR 96 (19 January 2012) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/96.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 96 |
[New search] [Contents list] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
(Application no. 28527/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
19 January 2012
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 Reiner v. Germany,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Dean Spielmann,
President,
Elisabet Fura,
Boštjan M.
Zupančič,
Ann Power-Forde,
Ganna
Yudkivska,
Angelika Nußberger,
André
Potocki, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek,
Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 December 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Background to the case
1. The applicant’s previous convictions and the order for his preventive detention
2. Previous proceedings concerning the execution of the preventive detention order
B. The proceedings at issue
1. The proceedings before the Aachen Regional Court
2. The proceedings before the Cologne Court of Appeal
3. The proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court
C. Subsequent developments
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. The ordering of preventive detention by the sentencing court
B. The order for execution of a preventive detention order
C. Judicial review and duration of preventive detention
D. Recent case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court on preventive detention
THE LAW
“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. Scope of the case before the Court
B. Admissibility
1. The parties’ submissions
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) Exhaustion of domestic remedies
(b) Loss of victim status
C. 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”
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 January 2012, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Claudia Westerdiek Dean Spielmann
Registrar President