Winterwerp v Netherlands 6301/73 (1979) ECHR 4: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
{{caselaw-stub}} | {{caselaw-stub}} | ||
[[Category: | [[Category:ECHR]] | ||
[[Category:Brief summary]] | [[Category:Brief summary]] | ||
[[Category:Transcript]] | [[Category:Transcript]] | ||
[[Category:1979 cases]] | [[Category:1979 cases]] |
Revision as of 23:01, 30 December 2008
In the court’s opinion, except in emergency cases, the individual concerned should not be deprived of his liberty unless he has been reliably shown to be of ‘unsound mind’. The very nature of what has to be established before the competent national authority – this is, a true mental disorder – calls for objective medical expertise. Further, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement. What is more, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder.
Resources
Bailii:
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: