CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 9 août 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .s16C75182 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:324pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEDC5336B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .s9378202A { width:33.05pt; display:inline-block } .s6442AFE5 { width:23.04pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS                         421 9.8.1999   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DOUIYEB v. THE NETHERLANDS     The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that there was no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in the case of Douiyeb v. the Netherlands (application no. 31464/96).     The case concerns Abdelaziz Douiyeb, a Moroccan national born in 1960 and living in Amsterdam. In February 1996 Mr Douiyeb, who was suspected of trafficking in human beings in contravention of Article 250 ter of the Netherlands Criminal Code, was detained in police custody. However, due to a clerical error, the custody order referred to Article 250 instead of Article 250 ter of the Criminal Code. The applicant claimed that detention in police custody could not be authorised under Article 250.     In a unanimous judgment [1] , the Court held that there had been no violation of the Convention under Article 5 (right to liberty and security) § 1 (c) and § 4.     Judgment was given by a Grand Chamber of seventeen judges, composed as follows: Elisabeth Palm (Swedish), President, Luigi Ferrari Bravo [2] (Italian), Lucius Caflisch [3] (Swiss), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Boštjan Zupančič (Slovenian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), John Hedigan (Irish), Wilhelmina Thomassen (Dutch), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Tudor Pantiru (Moldovan), Egils Levits (Latvian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Judges ,   and also Maud de Boer-Buquicchio , Deputy Registrar .     The full text of the judgment can be found on the Court’s Internet site: http://www.dhcour.coe.fr.   It is available in English and French.     ***   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92) Or:   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax:   (0)3 88 41 27 91     The European Court of Human Rights was set up in 1959 in Strasbourg to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Court and Commission.   [1] The judgment was notified in writing on 4 August 1999. [2] Elected as the judge in respect of San Marino. [3] Elected as the judge in respect of Liechtenstein.