Judgment Ilnseher v. Germany - retrospective preventive detention of convicted murderer

CtEDO 2014-12-22 0,90

under any of the sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1. Relying on the Court’s findings in the case of M. v. Germany (no. 19359/04, ECHR 2009), the applicant argues, in particular, that his detention failed to comply with sub-paragraph

CtEDO 2016-09-19 0,88

M. v. Germany (cited above), K v. Germany (no. 61827/09, 7 June 2012), Glien (cited above) and Bergmann (cited above), was a heavier penalty imposed on the applicant than the one which was applicable at the time of the commission of his off

CtEDO 2017-02-02 0,88

e detention and of the fact that the judgment had been determined with the participation of a biased judge, P. 30. On 5 March 2013 the Federal Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as ill-founded. 31. On 11 Apri

CtEDO 2013-01-30 0,88

a term of imprisonment or previously served a prison sentence as stipulated in Article 66 § 1 (1) and (2). (b) Retrospective preventive detention orders The Retrospective Preventive Detention Act ( Gesetz zur Einführung der nachträglichen S

CtEDO 2013-06-03 0,88

in the version applicable at the relevant time, provided: Article 66b Retrospective order for placement in preventive detention “1. If prior to the end of enforcement of a term of imprisonment imposed on conviction for a felony against life