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] | ||
[[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
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: