Rutten v The Netherlands 32605/96 (2001) ECHR 482: 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 482}} | ||
Latest revision as of 11:15, 25 April 2021
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: