The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and living in GPE . He is represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE , the applicant was convicted of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and sentenced to CARDINAL half years’ imprisonment . He had attacked his girl friend following consumption of alcohol .

On DATE , the applicant pleaded guilty to CARDINAL counts of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm arising out of an incident when , under the influence of alcohol , he stabbed his DATE stepson and brother - in - law with a screwdriver .

The pre - sentence report prepared by ORG observed inter alia that the applicant ’s tendency to violence stemmed from his habit of excessive drinking and that he was at high risk of further offending . It also noted his genuine remorse for the offences and his intention to work on his alcohol problem .

The trial judge sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG in relation to the wounding convictions . In that regard , the judge stated inter alia :

“ ... the CARDINAL offences for which you fall to be sentenced ... are so serious that only custodial sentences can be justified . Indeed ... I am obliged to pass an automatic life sentence of imprisonment upon you in respect of each of these offences , unless I am of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating either to the offences or to you ...

I have listened carefully to [ the applicant counsel ’s ] submissions , I have carefully read your wife ’s letter and I have read the contents of the pre - sentence report and all the conclusions that I have come to ... I am not satisfied that there are any exceptional circumstances which should lead me not to impose an automatic life sentence ... ”

The judge assessed the applicable determinate sentence ( which he would have passed but for LAW at DATE , allowing for the mitigation in the applicant ’s case and the time already served , and on that basis fixed a tariff of DATE .

The applicant did not apply at that time to appeal against sentence . Following developments in domestic case - law concerning the application of LAW ( see below ) , the applicant made an application for permission to appeal against sentence to ORG .

On DATE , after a hearing at which the applicant was represented by counsel , ORG rejected the applicant ’s application for leave to appeal and his application to call fresh evidence . It noted that the trial judge had not carried out an assessment of the risk posed by the applicant to the public when imposing the sentence of life imprisonment which had been found to be the proper approach in the subsequent PERSON case . It went on to review the case in light of the new authority and taking into account a report by a consultant forensic psychiatrist commissioned by the applicant . Noting however the applicant ’s “ worrying ” history of alcohol abuse and violence with a weapon , it found that the applicant represented a continuing risk to the public and that an automatic life sentence was appropriate in the circumstances of his case .

The applicant ’s tariff expired on DATE . His case was considered by ORG on DATE and it directed his release , subject to certain licence conditions , as it considered his detention was no longer necessary to protect the public .

On DATE , the applicant was released .

The DATE Act came into force on DATE . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) provide as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) This section applies where -

( a ) a person is convicted of a serious offence committed after the commencement of this section ; and

( b ) at the time when that offence was committed , he was DATE or over and had been convicted in any part of GPE of another serious offence .

( CARDINAL ) The court shall impose a life sentence , that is to say -

( a ) where the person is ORG over , a sentence of imprisonment for life ; ( b ) where he is DATE , a sentence of custody for life under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ,

unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to either of the offences or to the offender which justify its not doing so .

( CARDINAL ) Where the court does not impose a life sentence , it shall state in open court that it is of that opinion and what the exceptional circumstances are . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) listed the offences considered “ serious ” for the purposes of the section . The offences listed in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) were already punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment and they include rape .

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Act impose mandatory penalties of DATE for a third conviction on class A drug trafficking offences and domestic burglaries , respectively . Both sections oblige the court to impose the fixed sentence when the statutory conditions are fulfilled except :

“ where the court is of the opinion that there are specific circumstances which -

( a ) NORP relate to any of the offences or to the offender ; and

( b ) would make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances . ”

In this case , decided after the entry into force of LAW DATE , ORG adopted a more flexible interpretation of the words “ exceptional circumstances ” in section QUANTITY of LAW .

The appellants contended that section CARDINAL was incompatible with , inter alia , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . ORG agreed that the manner of interpreting section DATE meant that that section could clearly operate in a disproportionate manner , it not being difficult to find examples of situations where it would be wholly disproportionate to impose a life sentence even for a second serious offence .

It considered that the problem would disappear if the words “ exceptional circumstances ” in section CARDINAL were construed in a manner which accorded with the policy of ORG in adopting the section . That policy was to protect the public . Accordingly , a finding that an offender does not constitute a significant risk to the public should be considered to constitute “ exceptional circumstances ” which approach , ORG considered , would accord with parliamentary intent and with the provisions of the Convention .


Violation of Art. 5-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 8;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and at the relevant time he lived in PERSON . At present he lives in GPE .

In TIME of DATE the applicant ’s wife warned the police by telephone that the applicant intended to drive his car after having drunk alcoholic beverages , that he carried a weapon , that his behaviour was strange and that it was possible that he could cause injury to other persons . Upon this information the police stopped the car driven by the applicant . As the applicant actively resisted his search , the police handcuffed him . A sword was taken away from him . The analysis of his breath indicated that the applicant had alcohol in his blood . According to the applicant , the breath test was forged .

The police brought the applicant to a police station , where they withdrew his driving licence . Subsequently he was brought to a psychiatrist . After a short examination the applicant was released . Later on DATE the doctor issued a certificate , at the request of the applicant ’s wife , in which the police were requested for assistance in transporting the applicant to a mental hospital .

NORP In TIME CARDINAL DATE the applicant returned to his home but he could not unlock the door . He asked the police for assistance . Upon the arrival of the police the applicant ’s wife opened the door and asked that the applicant be taken away . He was brought to a mental hospital in an ambulance . After he had refused to undergo an examination , the applicant was brought against his will to another hospital . Medicaments were administered to him during DATE and he had to undergo psychiatric tests .

On DATE the administration of the hospital to which the applicant had been brought on DATE informed the ORG about the applicant ’s detention on account of the suspicion that he suffered from a mental disorder .

On DATE the ORG delivered a decision by which it started proceedings , with reference to ORG CARDINALa ( CARDINAL ) and PERSON ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , with a view to determining whether the applicant ’s placement in a mental hospital was justified . By another decision delivered on DATE ORG appointed a guardian to defend the applicant ’s rights in the proceedings .

On DATE a record concerning the applicant ’s detention in the mental hospital was drawn up in the presence of the applicant , the ORG judge dealing with the case and the doctor who treated the applicant . Reference was made to statements of the wife according to which the applicant ’s behaviour had changed following his return from GPE where he had been on business for DATE . According to her , the applicant alleged hearing strange voices and that his flat was monitored from outside by means of a fax machine . He had altercations with his colleagues and started carrying weapons . His wife feared that the applicant wanted to drown her in the bath and stated that he had not allowed their children to go to school . The applicant denied such allegations and explained that there had been disagreements between him and his wife . He affirmed that he was not ill and refused examination by psychologists . The record further stated that the applicant was being treated with medicaments and that his brother suffered from paranoid schizophrenia . It concluded that a professor would decide on DATE whether further treatment was necessary .

In a decision delivered on DATE the ORG found that the applicant ’s detention in the mental hospital was lawful . Reference was made to the ORG presumption that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder and to the fact that he was treated with medicaments .

On DATE the applicant was released from the hospital .

On DATE the president of the ORG apologised to the applicant for the delay in serving on him the above decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was allowed to consult the court ’s case file . On this occasion he was served with ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning the lawfulness of his examination in a mental hospital . On DATE and on CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed against this decision and also against the decision of DATE on the appointment of a guardian . He alleged , in particular , that his arrest had been unjustified , that he had been heard by a judge on DATE , that is DATE after his arrest , and that the court had taken DATE to decide on the lawfulness of his detention contrary to the relevant law .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It found that the applicant ’s detention had been justified by his strange behaviour and by the ORG presumption that he had suffered from a mental disorder . ORG considered irrelevant the applicant ’s objection concerning the delay in deciding on his case at first instance and in serving the ORG decision of DATE .

DATE ( CARDINAL ) provides that a court has to be notified , within TIME , of a person ’s detention in a medical institution without his or her consent . Courts are obliged to decide on such a detention within DATE .

Section CARDINALa ( CARDINAL ) provides that medical institutions are obliged to inform the competent court , within TIME , of the detention of any person without his or her written consent .

Under Section CARDINALb ( CARDINAL ) , the court shall start proceedings upon such a notification with a view to determining whether the interference was justified .

Pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of Section CARDINALb , the court shall appoint a guardian to the person concerned unless he or she has a representative .

Paragraph CARDINAL of Section PERSON provides that the court shall take evidence with a view to determining whether the person was placed in a medical institution in accordance with the law . It shall hear both the person concerned and his or her doctor .

Pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of Section CARDINALb , the court shall decide on the lawfulness of the interference within DATE from the moment when the person concerned was brought to the hospital .

Section CARDINALc ( CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that a judicial decision under LAW ( CARDINAL ) shall be served on the person concerned within TIME after it has been taken and not later than five days from the moment when his or her liberty was restricted unless the doctor indicates that such a person is not capable of understanding its contents .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before ORG , solicitors in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . His claim for widows’ benefits was made on DATE and was rejected on DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman . The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IV and Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Ms S. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent .

On DATE the applicant 's wife , PERSON , instituted divorce proceedings before ORG on the grounds , inter alia , of domestic violence .

On DATE following the decision of ORG to divorce the couple , fighting broke out between the CARDINAL families in the corridor of the court house . In the course of the fight , PERSON , the father of PERSON , injured the applicant and a police officer , Mr O.C.U. , with a knife . Other people were also injured during the incident , including Mr PERSON , who sustained , inter alia , an oedema and a haematoma on his right eye , which rendered him unfit for work for DATE .

The police intervened . Mr PERSON and a number of family members from both parties were arrested and taken into police custody where they gave statements about the incident .

On DATE the police found a bloody pocket knife on the premises . When the knife was passed through the metal detector at one of the doors of the court house , the police noticed that the sensors at this door did not give a detection signal . The knife was sent to a criminal laboratory for analysis .

On DATE the experts ' report on the knife was sent to the public prosecutor . In his cover letter , the police chief at the court house informed the prosecutor that the pocket knife in question did not fall within the category of forbidden knives within the meaning of section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE .

On DATE , upon the request of the public prosecutor , a doctor at ORG examined the applicant 's medical reports and noted that , in addition to some minor cuts , he had a suffered life - threatening injury and consequently had to have his spleen taken out . The doctor opined that this rendered him unfit for work for DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an official complaint of negligence with the GPE public prosecutor against the police officers who had been on duty at the entrance of the court house . In his submission , he noted that he had sustained a life - threatening knife injury on DATE and criticised the fact that a person had been able to enter the court house with a knife , despite security checks .

On DATE the applicant gave evidence to the public prosecutor in which he repeated his allegations .

DATE , CARDINAL police officers who had been on duty at the entrance of the court house gave written statements to the police . In particular , they submitted that the metal detectors at the entrance were not always sensitive or that they occasionally failed to operate , but that in such cases the police chief informed the relevant authorities and the technical personnel made the necessary repairs .

On DATE the prosecutor received information and documents , including statements , from the police chief at the court house .

On DATE the prosecutor heard evidence from CARDINAL of the police officers who had intervened in the fight between the parties . According to the police officer Mr GPE , they had been on duty outside the hearing room of ORG , where a tense hearing had been taking place . At the end of the hearing , they had accompanied the members of CARDINAL of the parties outside . However , upon their return , they saw that a woman , whom they had just escorted outside , was swearing and that , despite their intervention , when the other party responded verbally , both parties started physically attacking each other . Mr ORG further submitted that , after the events , they had found a bloody knife at ORG of ORG and that , when they had passed it through one of the entrance doors , the metal detector had not given a signal . The other police officer , PERSON O.C.U. , gave a similar testimony . Both officers said that they had not seen who had the knife or how the applicant had been injured .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor decided that there was no need to prosecute the police officers who had been on duty at the entrance of the court house , on the ground that no fault could be attributed to them . In his decision , the prosecutor noted that it had been established that the knife used in the crime had not been detected by the metal detector and that , subsequent to the events , the police had requested that the machine 's sensitivity be adjusted accordingly .

On DATE the applicant objected to the public prosecutor 's decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's objection . That decision was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .

Criminal proceedings were instigated against Mr PERSON , inter alia , for causing physical injury under LAW .

On DATE ORG convicted PERSON as charged and he was sentenced to prison . That decision was quashed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG convicted PERSON as charged . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment in respect of his act against the applicant , and DATE and DATE imprisonment in respect of his act against the police officer , Mr O.C.U. After having examined the evidence in the case file , including witness testimonies , the court established the facts as follows : both parties had displayed quarrelsome behaviour at past hearings so , at the end of the hearing , the applicant and his family had been taken out of the hearing room first so as to avoid any incident . However , it appeared that they had failed to leave the court house and , as a result , when the other party had been let out of the hearing room TIME , both parties had started swearing and fighting with each other . In the course of the incident , the applicant had punched his ex - father - in - law and the latter , in response , had injured him with a knife . The case is still pending before ORG .

According to an internal police memo dated DATE , the applicant had never applied to the police on the ground that his life had been under threat or requested any protection prior to the incident .

On DATE the police chief at the court house submitted information to ORG , in response to the applicant 's allegations before ORG , as regards the security measures at the court house . According to this information , there is QUANTITY police protection in the area outside the court house , CARDINAL people enter the court house DATE and all of these people pass through metal detectors , before undergoing a body search , while their bags and other belongings are passed through an X - ray machine . Police officers are stationed outside each chamber and , if requested , additional measures are taken . The police chief also stated that it was possible for the metal detector not to detect the pocket knife in question if it was closed and wrapped in a material that was not sensitive to metal . He further submitted that the knife at issue had been passed through a metal detector and that the latter had not given any signal .