Category

ECHR deprivation of liberty cases

The new database structure introduced in 2019 is more useful than this Category page: see Special:Drilldown/Cases.

The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.

Case and summary Date added Categories
* MHT/Parole Board delay LV v UK 50718/16 [2018] MHLO 22"Complaint: The applicant complains under Article 5(4) of the Convention that she did not have a speedy review of the legality of her detention. In particular, she contends that her right to a speedy review was violated both by delays on the part of the Public Protection Casework Section and the Parole Board, and from the unnecessary two-stage Tribunal/Parole Board process. Question to the Parties: Was the review of the applicant’s detention which commenced on 24 May 2011 and concluded on 21 March 2013 conducted 'speedily' within the meaning of Article 5(4) of the Convention?" (The first paragraph of the decision is wrong as the applicant's solicitor works for Campbell Law Solicitors.) 2018‑04‑21 22:48:11 2018 cases, Cases, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Prison law cases


DD v Lithuania 13469/06 [2012] ECHR 254, [2012] MHLO 29 — Breach of Article 5(4) and Article 6(1) in relation to involuntary admission to a psychiatric institution. 2012‑03‑24 14:22:45 2012 cases, Detailed summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript


Stanev v Bulgaria 36760/06 [2012] ECHR 46, [2012] MHLO 1(1) The applicant's placement in a social care home for people with mental disorders and his inability to obtain permission to leave the home led to breaches of Article 5(1), (4) and (5). (2) The living conditions in the home led to breaches of Article 3, and of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3. (3) The lack of access to a court to seek release from partial guardianship breached Article 6(1). (4) No separate issue arose under Article 8 so it was unnecessary to examine that complaint. (5) Compensation of €15,000 was awarded. 2012‑01‑17 22:03:51 2012 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Other capacity cases, Transcript


Stojanovski v Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 1431/03 [2009] ECHR 1615 — Breach of Article 5. [Summary required.] 2010‑07‑09 21:22:24 2009 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, No summary, Transcript


Juncal v UK 32357/09 [2010] ECHR 249 — Lawfulness of detention. Statement of facts and questions to the parties lodged at court. [Summary required.] 2010‑03‑02 20:37:47 2010 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases


Halilovic v Bosnia and Herzegovina 23968/05 [2009] ECHR 1933(1) The appellant's detention for 4 years 5 months was pursuant to an administrative decision, as opposed to a decision of the competent civil court as required by the amended domestic legislation, and so breached Article 5(1); compensation of €22,500 was awarded. (2) The Article 3 claim relating to conditions of detention failed. 2009‑12‑04 20:31:52 2009 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Tam v Slovakia 50213/99 [2004] ECHR 282(1) Violation of Article 5(1): Detention not in accordance with procedure prescribed by domestic law. (2) Violation of Article 5(4): The review procedure failed to provide adequate guarantees to the applicant; in particular, the court failed to appoint a guardian as required by domestic law, and did not hear the applicant or the doctor treating him with a view to establishing whether the applicant’s deprivation of liberty had been justified. 2009‑04‑10 21:45:58 2004 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Nowika v Poland 30218/96 [2002] ECHR 795The detention for 83 days of the applicant under Article 5(1)(b) (the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law) violated Article 5(1) as it was for longer than necessary for the fulfilment of the obligation to submit to a psychiatric examination; the restriction on visits by her family to one visit per month violated Article 8; compensation of €10,000 was awarded 2009‑04‑10 15:22:01 2002 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Kepenerov v Bulgaria 39269/98 [2003] ECHR 425The claimant was detained for a month by a prosecutor who had no legal power to do so, had not sought a prior medical assessment, and had not specified the length of detention (furthermore, there was no legal means to challenge the detention); there therefore had been a violation of Article 5(1)(e) and compensation of €2000 was awarded. 2009‑04‑10 13:54:23 2003 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Gorshkov v Ukraine 67531/01 [2005] ECHR 936Although a detained patient's case was regularly reviewed on an automatic basis, the patient had no right to initiate proceedings and was not a party to them; there therefore had been a breach of Article 5(4) 2009‑04‑10 13:05:43 2005 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Gajcsi v Hungary 34503/03 [2006] ECHR 822The continuation of the claimant's detention for three months was not in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, in that dangerous conduct had not been considered by the reviewing court; there had therefore been a breach of Article 5(1) and compensation of €7350 was awarded 2009‑04‑10 12:50:15 2006 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Atanasov v Bulgaria 73281/01 [2008] ECHR 1266The applicant alleged that his pre-trial detention and house arrest had been unjustified and excessively lengthy, that his confinement in a psychiatric clinic in August and September 2000 had been unlawful, that he had not been able to appeal to a court and that he did not have a right to compensation in this connection. Article 5(1), (4) and (5) had been breached and €2000 damages were awarded. 2009‑04‑09 21:35:21 2008 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Pankiewicz v Poland 34151/04 [2008] ECHR 148It would be too rigid to expect immediate transfer from prison to psychiatric hospital but, although the delay of 2 months 25 days did not at first glance seem particularly excessive, on balance it was not acceptable and violated Article 5(1); the claimant had been compensated by the domestic court so was not a victim for Article 5(3) purposes; the Article 6 complaint was rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies 2009‑01‑12 23:57:23 2008 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Morsink v The Netherlands 48865/99 [2004] ECHR 197Transfer from prison to a clinic was delayed for over 15 months; immediate transfer was not expected but, on the facts, the delay breached Article 5(1) and damages were awarded. 2008‑11‑28 07:17:06 2004 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Brand v The Netherlands 49902/99 [2004] ECHR 196Transfer from prison to a clinic was delayed for 14 months; immediate transfer was not expected but, on the facts, the delay breached Article 5(1) and damages were awarded. 2008‑11‑28 07:05:25 2004 cases, Detailed summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Rutten v The Netherlands 32605/96 [2001] ECHR 482The decision to renew the patient's confinement order was taken after the order had expired, but under domestic law there was nothing requiring release in these circumstances; under Convention law the detention was not arbitrary, being based on a court order and expert evidence, so there was no violation of Article 5(1); however, the lawfulness of detention was not decided speedily, so there was a violation of Article 4(4); this finding constituted just satisfaction. 2008‑11‑27 22:22:17 2001 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Shtukaturov v Russia 44009/05 [2008] ECHR 223 — Incapacity proceedings and detention breached ECHR Articles 5, 6, and 8. [Summary required.] 2008‑10‑13 15:16:32 2008 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, No summary, Transcript


HM v Switzerland 39187/98 [2002] ECHR 157 — HM was admitted to a nursing home because of neglect. She argued that neglect was not a ground for deprivation of liberty, and that she did not fall into the vagrancy category under Article 5(1). The ECHR held that there had been no deprivation of liberty and so no breach of Article 5(1). HM had capacity to object but was undecided; the clinic were entitled to infer consent from the lack of objection. [Summary required; detailed external summary available.] 2007‑02‑07 20:35:52 2002 cases, Detailed summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Nielsen v Denmark 10929/84 [1988] ECHR 23 — Article 5 and child's admission to a psychiatric ward which had been arranged by his mother. [Summary required.] 2007‑02‑07 20:34:39 2000 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript


Guzzardi v Italy 7367/76 [1980] ECHR 5Article 5(1) is not concerned with mere restrictions on liberty of movement; the starting point must be the concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure; the difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance. 2007‑02‑07 20:33:24 1980 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Ashingdane v UK 8225/78 [1985] ECHR 8Article 5 is concerned with deprivation of liberty rather than mere restriction on liberty (in this case the failure to transfer the patient from high to medium security). 2007‑02‑07 20:32:24 1985 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript


Rakevich v Russia 58973/00 [2003] ECHR 558 — Detention and Article 5. [Summary required.] 2007‑02‑07 20:31:19 2003 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, No summary, Transcript


Storck v Germany 61603/00 [2005] ECHR 406 — Breach of Arts 5, 8 for detention in private clinic. This case is taken as the source of the three-fold analysis of Article 5 deprivation of liberty, which was summarised in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19, [2014] MHLO 16 as follows: "... what is the essential character of a deprivation of liberty? ... three components can be derived from Storck ..., confirmed in Stanev ..., as follows: (a) the objective component of confinement in a particular restricted place for a not negligible length of time; (b) the subjective component of lack of valid consent; and (c) the attribution of responsibility to the state." 2007‑02‑07 20:30:02 2005 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript


HL v UK 45508/99 [2004] ECHR 471 — 'Informal' compliant incapacitated patient was deprived of his liberty, with lack of procedural safeguards or access to court, in breach of Art 5(1) and (4). 2007‑02‑07 20:29:00 2004 cases, Detailed summary, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Transcript