CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mai 1997

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. May 1997 Eriksen v. Norway (no. 2) - 17391/90 Judgment 27.5.1997 Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-a After conviction Article 5-1-c Reasonable suspicion Provisional detention after expiry of authorisation to use security measures, pending examination of the appropriateness of prolonging the authorisation: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION Court reiterated that the list of permissible grounds of detention in Article 5 § 1 was exhaustive and that applicability of one ground did not necessarily preclude that of another. Lawfulness of applicant's detention on remand under Article 171 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (from 25 February to 15 May 1990) considered by District Court, High Court and Supreme Court in no less than seven decisions – all of which found detention justified. Article 5 § 1 (a):   had a prolongation of authorisation to use security measures under Article 39 of the Penal Code been granted, it would have been based on the offences which had grounded the initial conviction for threatening behaviour and physical assault (Articles 227 and 228) and the authorisation to use security measures in 1984, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in 1985 – the provisional detention in issue was consistent with the objectives of that authorisation, which had regard to the applicant's deviant character and serious danger that he would commit further criminal offences, such as threatening behaviour – it was essentially because of the persistence of these circumstances and the likelihood of the Article 39 authorisation being prolonged, that applicant had been detained on remand – Court satisfied that the detention was directly linked to his initial conviction in 1984 and thus could be regarded as "lawful detention ... after conviction by a competent court". Article 5 § 1 (c):   as a rule this provision would not provide a justification for redetention or continued detention of a person who has served a sentence after conviction of a specific criminal offence where there is a suspicion that he might commit a further similar offence – however, in the exceptional circumstances of the case, the detention could be justified under paragraph 1 (c) of Article 5 ("reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence") – in view of the nature and extent of the applicant's previous convictions and his mental state, there were substantial grounds for believing that he would commit further similar offences, which were sufficiently concrete and specific to meet standard in Court's case-law – the detention in question could be seen as closely linked to the original criminal proceedings in 1984 and the resulting conviction and security measures. Article 5 § 1 (e):   having reached the above conclusions, not necessary to examine whether this provision also applied. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION Court saw no reason to question fact that national court decided that two expert statements and an opinion by the medical authority were required – expediency of obtaining evidence is primarily a matter for national authorities and not for Court to substitute its view for theirs in this respect – nothing to suggest that experts and authority concerned failed to act with a sufficient degree of diligence; no other indication that the detention exceeded a reasonable time. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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