CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 juin 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 197 June 2016 Petschulies v. Germany - 6281/13 Judgment 2.6.2016 [Section V] Article 5 Article 5-1-e Persons of unsound mind Preventive detention of violent mental-health patient in purpose-built centre offering appropriate medical care: no violation Facts – In 2001 the applicant, who already had a string of convictions for violent offences, was convicted of an assault committed on his daughter while on home leave from preventive detention that had been ordered following periods of imprisonment. He was sentenced to four months’ imprisonment, which he served before being transferred to a hospital detoxification department for alcohol abuse. In 2005 a Regional Court ordered his further preventive detention in a psychiatric hospital rather than in a detoxification facility, as his rehabilitation could be better promoted there. In 2011 his preventive detention in a psychiatric hospital was renewed beyond the maximum ten-year limit on the grounds that he suffered from a mental disorder entailing a high risk of further violent offending in the event of his release. Law – Article 5 § 1: The applicant suffered from a dissocial personality disorder that did not amount to a pathological mental disorder. The Court had in previous cases repeatedly expressed doubts as to whether a dissocial personality or dissocial personality disorder alone could be considered a sufficiently serious mental disorder to be classified as a “true” mental disorder for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (e). However, it found that there were sufficient elements in the applicant’s case to show that his disorder was sufficiently serious to come within the scope of that provision. His disorder had marked psychopathic elements and was exacerbated by his abuse of alcohol. The extent of the disorder had manifested itself in the manner in which the offences were committed: under the influence of alcohol, and with randomly chosen victims and gratuitous brutality. Furthermore, the fact that the authorities had ordered the applicant’s preventive detention in a psychiatric hospital several years prior to the decisions complained of indicated that they considered that his condition required, or stood to benefit from, therapeutic treatment in a psychiatric hospital. The Court was further satisfied that the applicant’s mental disorder was of a kind or degree that warranted compulsory confinement in view of the high risk of his committing serious violent crimes and that under the domestic law, the applicant’s preventive detention could only be continued if and for so long as that risk remained. The Court was therefore satisfied that the applicant was a person “of unsound mind” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 (e). The Court went on to note that the applicant was essentially detained in a supervised residential facility affiliated to a psychiatric hospital with the aim of preparing him for his release and gradually rehabilitating him. It considered that the suitability of the institution for mental-health patients was not called into question by the fact that he no longer received any specific treatment for his mental disorder. The applicant’s preventive detention complied with national law and was necessary in view of the high risk of his committing further extremely serious violent offences. It was thus not arbitrary, despite the fact that it had already exceeded twenty years. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). (See Bergmann v. Germany , 23279/14, 7 January 2016, Information Note 192 , and the cases cited therein)   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes