DN v Switzerland 27154/95 (2001) ECHR 235: 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:[2001] ECHR 235}} | ||
Revision as of 11:15, 25 April 2021
The psychiatrist who sat as judge rapporteur on the Administrative Appeals Commission had, before the hearing, concluded that the patient should not be released; the patient had legitimate fears that the doctor had a preconceived opinion and was not acting impartially; this was reinforced because he was sole the psychiatric expert and the only person who had interviewed her; Article 5(4) having been breached, damages and costs were awarded
External link
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: