Judgment Glien v. Germany - preventive detention of mentally-ill person

CtEDO 2017-07-06 0,91

(see paragraph 24 below). 22. On 18 November 2013 the Marburg Regional Court again extended the applicant’s preventive detention. II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 23. A comprehensive summary of the provisions of the Criminal Code and

CtEDO 2014-09-03 0,90

the Basic Law. The applicant further complains under Article 7 § 1 of the Convention that his preventive detention, a penalty ordered on the basis of a legal provision which entered into force after he had committed his offence, violated th

CtEDO 2015-11-04 0,89

tention was ordered in a judgment of 4 May 1998 in respect of an offence committed on 11 May 1997, was that detention justified under Article 5 § 1 (a)? And was the applicant’s detention justified under Article 5 § 1 (e)? Were the applicant

CtEDO 2014-12-22 0,89

19359/04, ECHR 2009) and a number of follow-up cases (see, in particular, Kallweit v. Germany, no. 17792/07, 13 January 2011; O.H. v. Germany, no. 4646/08, 24 November 2011; Kronfeldner v. Germany, no. 21906/09, 19 January 2012; and Glien v

CtEDO 2012-06-14 0,89

s of unsound mind” in Article 5 § 1 sub-paragraph (e) of the Convention made in this Court’s case-law (see §§ 138 and 143-156 of the Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment). If the above pre-conditions were not met, those detainees had to