Wall v Sweden 41403/98 (1997) ECHR 201: Difference between revisions
m (Text replacement - "{{stub}} " to "") |
m (Text replacement - "\[http:\/\/www\.bailii\.org\/.*\/cases\/(UKSC|ECHR|UKPC|EWCOP|EWFC|UKHL|PBRA)\/(.*)\/(.*)\.html Bailii\]" to "{{#bailii:[$2] $1 $3}}") |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
==External link== | ==External link== | ||
[ | {{#bailii:[1997] ECHR 201}} | ||
[http://www.1cor.com/1315/?form_1155.replyids=819 Detailed summary on 1COR website] | [http://www.1cor.com/1315/?form_1155.replyids=819 Detailed summary on 1COR website] | ||
Latest revision as of 11:15, 25 April 2021
The detention of an alcoholic under Article 5(1)(e) did not breach Article 5(1): the authorities continuously considered less severe measures, they strictly scrutinised the necessity for subjecting the applicant to compulsory care, and the total length of the applicant’s detention was not extended beyond a period reasonable to the aim pursued by domestic law, namely to motivate the applicant in such a way that he become capable of voluntary participation in continuing treatment and capable of receiving support in order to discontinue his abuse.
External link
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: