CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mai 2017

.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 } .s9E10B953 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 17 May 2017   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 70410/16 Peter BREIDENBACH against Germany lodged on 25 November 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the extension of the applicant’s preventive detention, executed in Aachen Prison, beyond the former ten-year maximum duration by a decision of the Aachen Regional Court of 11 April 2014, confirmed on appeal. 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?   (a)     In particular, having regard to the Court’s judgments in the cases of 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”?   (b)     And was the applicant’s detention lawful? In particular, were the conditions in which the applicant was imprisoned adapted so as to take account of the fact that he was considered as suffering from a mental disorder? Where and under which specific conditions was the applicant detained during the period in which he was being deprived of his liberty as a result of the impugned decision? And did the conditions of the applicant’s detention change during that period?   (c)     When did the Regional Court take a new decision reviewing the necessity of the further extension of the applicant’s preventive detention after the review proceedings here at issue?   2.     Taking into consideration, in particular, the Court’s conclusions in its judgments in the cases of M. v. Germany (no. 19359/04, ECHR 2009), 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 retrospective extension of his preventive detention, in breach of Article 7 § 1 of the Convention?   REQUEST FOR SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS The Government is further asked, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (a) of the Rules of Court, to submit to the Court, within sixteen weeks from the communication of part of the present application, the following documents (in copy):   –     the judgment of the Cologne Regional Court of 6 March 1991 convicting the applicant and ordering his preventive detention (file no.   106 ‑ 1/91);   –     the decisions taken in the previous set of proceedings in which the applicant’s preventive detention was extended, that is, the decision of the Aachen Regional Court of 20 November 2012 (file no. 33 StVK 402/12 K) and of the Cologne Court of Appeal of 8 March 2013 (file no. 2 Ws 97/13);   –     the decisions taken on the extension of the applicant’s preventive detention in the proceedings following the judicial review proceedings here at issue;   –     the medical expert reports issued by psychological expert U.   Dönisch ‑ Seidel on 14 February 2014 and by psychiatric expert N. Saimeh on 6   December 2014.