Rutten v The Netherlands 32605/96 (2001) ECHR 482: Difference between revisions

No edit summary
m (Text replacement - "{{stub}} " to "")
Line 4: Line 4:
[http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2001/482.html Bailii]
[http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2001/482.html Bailii]


{{stub}}


[[Category:ECHR deprivation of liberty cases]]
[[Category:ECHR deprivation of liberty cases]]

Revision as of 21:22, 26 May 2015

The 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.

External link

Bailii