S v Estonia 17779/08 (2011) ECHR 1511: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "''Under domestic law S should have been heard 'promptly' after the county court ruled on her compulsory admission to hospital, but was not heard for 15 days; no adequate justific...") |
m (Text replacement - "{{bailii|" to "{{#bailii:") |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
{{bailii | {{#bailii:(2011) ECHR 1511}} | ||
[[Category:Deprivation of liberty]] | [[Category:Deprivation of liberty]] | ||
Latest revision as of 23:46, 30 October 2016
Under domestic law S should have been heard 'promptly' after the county court ruled on her compulsory admission to hospital, but was not heard for 15 days; no adequate justification was given; this was a considerable portion of the three-month admission period; the domestic supreme court noted the procedural violation but offered no redress: overall, there had been a breach of Article 5(1), in that she was not detained in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. Compensation of €5000 was awarded.
External link
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: