CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 septembre 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s7E985A62 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:4pt }   Communicated on 19 September 2016   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 57863/15 Uwe Reinhold ODERMATT against Germany lodged on 19 November 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF the CASE The application concerns the applicant’s preventive detention which the Stuttgart Regional Court, in a judgment of 20 March 2013, ordered with retrospective effect after the applicant had served his full prison sentence on 2 December 2012. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention as a result of the proceedings at issue?   In particular, having regard to the Court’s judgments in the cases of M.   v.   Germany (no. 19359/04, ECHR 2009), B v. Germany (no. 61272/09, 19   April 2012), Glien v. Germany (no. 7345/12, 28 November 2013) and Bergmann v. Germany (no. 23279/14, 7 January 2016), did that deprivation of liberty fall within sub-paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1 as detention of a person “of unsound mind” and/or detention of an “alcoholic”?   Where and in which conditions was the applicant imprisoned after 2   December 2012 and during the period he was being detained as a result of the impugned judgment? Did the conditions of the applicant’s detention change during that period? And were these conditions adapted so as to take account of the fact that the applicant was considered as suffering from a mental disorder and as being addicted to alcohol? When did the Regional Court take a new decision reviewing the necessity of the further extension of the applicant’s retrospectively ordered preventive detention?   2.     Taking into consideration, in particular, the Court’s conclusions in its judgments in the cases of 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 offences by the order of his preventive detention with retrospective effect, in breach of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, where and under which conditions was the applicant’s preventive detention executed during the period of detention here at issue?