Judgment H.W. v. Germany - review of offender's preventive detention

CtEDO 2014-09-03 0,91

at the time of the commission of the offence in the present case, as proscribed by Article 7 § 1 of the Convention? 3. Where and under which conditions was the applicant’s preventive detention resulting from the proceedings at issue execute

CtEDO 2016-09-19 0,89

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 2012-03-22 0,89

case of M. v. Germany (cited above; see §§ 137 ss. of the Federal Constitutional Court’s judgment). It stressed, in particular, that the constitutional requirement of establishing a difference between preventive detention and detention for

CtEDO 2018-04-18 0,89

/11, 19 September 2013), was his preventive detention “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in view of the domestic courts’ failure to comply with the statutory time ‐ limit for periodic review of the necessity of

CtEDO 2013-01-22 0,89

e detention. B. Relevant domestic law A comprehensive summary of the provisions of the Criminal Code and of the Code of Criminal Procedure governing the distinction between penalties and measures of correction and prevention, in particular