Guide On Article 5 of The European Convention On Human Rights

Guide on Article 5
of the European Convention

on Human Rights
Right to liberty and security
Updated on 31 August 2022
Prepared by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.

Guide on Article 5 of the Convention – Right to liberty and security
Publishers or organisations wishing to translate and/or reproduce all or part of this report in
the form of a printed or electronic publication are invited to contact [email protected]
for information on the authorisation procedure.
If you wish to know which translations of the Case-Law Guides are currently under way, please
see Pending translations.
This Guide was originally drafted in English. It is updated regularly and, most recently, on 31 August 2022. It
may be subject to editorial revision.
The Case-Law Guides are available for downloading at https://ks.echr.coe.int. For publication updates please
follow the Court’s Twitter account at https://twitter.com/ECHR_CEDH.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, 2022
European Court of Human Rights 2/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

Table of contents
Note to readers.............................................................................................. 6
I. Scope of application .................................................................................. 8

A. Deprivation of liberty .................................................................................................................. 8
B. Criteria to be applied .................................................................................................................. 8
C. Measures adopted within a prison ............................................................................................. 9
D. Security checks of air travellers ................................................................................................ 10
E. Deprivation of liberty outside formal arrest and detention ..................................................... 10
F. Positive obligations with respect to deprivation of liberty ....................................................... 11
II. Lawfulness of the detention under Article 5 § 1 ..................................... 11

A. Purpose of Article 5 .................................................................................................................. 11
B. Compliance with national law................................................................................................... 12
C. Review of compliance with national law .................................................................................. 12
D. General principles ..................................................................................................................... 12
E. The principle of legal certainty.................................................................................................. 12
F. No arbitrariness ......................................................................................................................... 13
G. Court order ............................................................................................................................... 14
H. Reasoning of decisions and the requirement of non-arbitrariness.......................................... 14
I. Some acceptable procedural flaws ............................................................................................ 15
J. Delay in executing order of release ........................................................................................... 15
III. Authorised deprivations of liberty under Article 5 § 1 ........................... 16

A. Detention after conviction........................................................................................................ 16
1. Existence of a conviction..................................................................................................... 16
2. Competent court................................................................................................................. 17
3. Detention must follow “after” conviction .......................................................................... 17
4. Impact of appellate proceedings ........................................................................................ 18
B. Detention for non-compliance with a court order or legal obligation ..................................... 18
1. Non-compliance with the order of a court ......................................................................... 19
2. Fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law .................................................................... 19
C. Detention on remand ............................................................................................................... 20
1. Purpose of arrest or detention ........................................................................................... 20
2. Meaning of “reasonable suspicion” .................................................................................... 22
3. The term “offence” ............................................................................................................. 23
D. Detention of a minor ................................................................................................................ 24
1. General................................................................................................................................ 24
2. Educational supervision ...................................................................................................... 24
3. Competent legal authority .................................................................................................. 25
E. Detention for medical or social reasons ................................................................................... 26
1. General................................................................................................................................ 26
2. Prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases ............................................................ 26
3. Detention of persons of unsound mind .............................................................................. 26

4. Detention of alcoholics and drug addicts ........................................................................... 29

5. Vagrants .............................................................................................................................. 29
F. Detention of a foreigner............................................................................................................ 29
1. Detention to prevent unauthorised entry into country ..................................................... 30
2. Detention with a view to deportation or extradition ......................................................... 30
IV. Guarantees for persons deprived of liberty ........................................... 33

A. Information on the reasons for arrest (Article 5 § 2) ............................................................... 33
1. Applicability......................................................................................................................... 33
2. Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 33
3. Person to whom the reasons must be provided................................................................. 33
4. Reasons must be provided “promptly” .............................................................................. 34
5. Manner in which the reasons are provided ........................................................................ 34
6. Extent of the reasons required ........................................................................................... 34
7. In a language which he understands .................................................................................. 35
B. Right to be brought promptly before a judge (Article 5 § 3) .................................................... 35
1. Aim of the provision............................................................................................................ 35
2. Prompt and automatic judicial control ............................................................................... 35
3. The nature of the appropriate judicial officer .................................................................... 36
4. Independence ..................................................................................................................... 37
5. Procedural requirement ..................................................................................................... 37
6. Substantive requirement .................................................................................................... 37
a. Review of the merits of detention ................................................................................ 37
b. Power of release ........................................................................................................... 38
C. Right to trial within a reasonable time or to be released pending trial (Article 5 § 3) ............. 38
1. Period to be taken into consideration ................................................................................ 38
2. General principles ............................................................................................................... 39
3. Justification for any period of detention ............................................................................ 40
4. Grounds for continued detention ....................................................................................... 40
a. Danger of absconding ................................................................................................... 40
b. Obstruction of the proceedings .................................................................................... 40
c. Repetition of offences ................................................................................................... 41
d. Preservation of public order ......................................................................................... 41
5. Special diligence .................................................................................................................. 41
6. Alternative measures .......................................................................................................... 42
7. Bail ...................................................................................................................................... 42
8. Pre-trial detention of minors .............................................................................................. 43
D. Right to have lawfulness of detention speedily examined by a Court (Article 5 § 4) .............. 44
1. Aim of the provision............................................................................................................ 44
2. Applicability of the provision .............................................................................................. 44
3. The nature of the review required ..................................................................................... 45
4. Procedural guarantees ........................................................................................................ 47
5. The “speediness” requirement ........................................................................................... 49
a. The period to be taken into consideration ................................................................... 49
b. Relevant factors to be taken into consideration when assessing speediness.............. 50
E. Right to compensation for unlawful detention (Article 5 § 5) .................................................. 51
1. Applicability......................................................................................................................... 51
2. Judicial remedy ................................................................................................................... 51
3. Availability of compensation .............................................................................................. 52
4. Nature of compensation ..................................................................................................... 52

5. Existence of damage ........................................................................................................... 52

6. Amount of compensation ................................................................................................... 52
List of cited cases ......................................................................................... 54

Note to readers
This Guide is part of the series of Guides on the Convention published by the European Court of
Human Rights (hereafter “the Court”, “the European Court” or “the Strasbourg Court”) to inform
legal practitioners about the fundamental judgments and decisions delivered by the Strasbourg
Court. This particular Guide analyses and sums up the case-law on Article 5 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (hereafter “the Convention” or “the European Convention”). Readers
will find herein the key principles in this area and the relevant precedents.
The case-law cited has been selected among the leading, major, and/or recent judgments and
decisions.*
The Court’s judgments and decisions serve not only to decide those cases brought before it but,
more generally, to elucidate, safeguard and develop the rules instituted by the Convention, thereby
contributing to the observance by the States of the engagements undertaken by them as Contracting
Parties (Ireland v. the United Kingdom, § 154, 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, and, more recently,
Jeronovičs v. Latvia [GC], no. 44898/10, § 109, 5 July 2016).
The mission of the system set up by the Convention is thus to determine issues of public policy in the
general interest, thereby raising the standards of protection of human rights and extending human
rights jurisprudence throughout the community of the Convention States (Konstantin Markin
v. Russia [GC], § 89, no. 30078/06, ECHR 2012). Indeed, the Court has emphasised the Convention’s
role as a “constitutional instrument of European public order” in the field of human rights
(Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 156, ECHR
2005-VI, and more recently, N.D. and N.T. v. Spain [GC], nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, § 110,
13 February 2020).
Protocol No. 15 to the Convention recently inserted the principle of subsidiarity into the Preamble to
the Convention. This principle “imposes a shared responsibility between the States Parties and the
Court” as regards human rights protection, and the national authorities and courts must interpret
and apply domestic law in a manner that gives full effect to the rights and freedoms defined in the
Convention and the Protocols thereto (Grzęda v. Poland [GC], § 324).
This Guide contains references to keywords for each cited Article of the Convention and its
Additional Protocols. The legal issues dealt with in each case are summarised in a List of keywords,
chosen from a thesaurus of terms taken (in most cases) directly from the text of the Convention and
its Protocols.
The HUDOC database of the Court’s case-law enables searches to be made by keyword. Searching
with these keywords enables a group of documents with similar legal content to be found (the
Court’s reasoning and conclusions in each case are summarised through the keywords). Keywords
for individual cases can be found by clicking on the Case Details tag in HUDOC. For further
information about the HUDOC database and the keywords, please see the HUDOC user manual.
* The case-law cited may be in either or both of the official languages (English and French) of the Court and the European
Commission of Human Rights. Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to a judgment on the merits delivered by a
Chamber of the Court. The abbreviation “(dec.)” indicates that the citation is of a decision of the Court and “[GC]” that the
case was heard by the Grand Chamber. Chamber judgments that were not final when this update was published are
marked with an asterisk (*).

Article 5 of the Convention – Right to liberty and security

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty
save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non- compliance with the lawful order of a court or
in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the
competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is
reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful
detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of
persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the
country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.
2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the
reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.
3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article
shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power
and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be
conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.
4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings
by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if
the detention is not lawful.
5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this
Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”
HUDOC keywords
1. Liberty of person (5-1) – Security of person (5-1) – Deprivation of liberty (5-1) – Procedure
prescribed by law (5-1) – Lawful arrest or detention (5-1)
(a) Conviction (5-1-a) – After conviction (5-1-a) – Competent court (5-1-a)
(b) Lawful order of a court (5-1-b) – Non-compliance with court order (5-1-b) – Secure fulfilment of
obligation prescribed by law (5-1-b)
(c) Bringing before competent legal authority (5-1-c) – Criminal offence (5-1-c) – Reasonable suspicion
(5-1-c) – Reasonably necessary to prevent offence (5-1-c) – Reasonably necessary to prevent
fleeing (5-1-c)
(d) Minors (5-1-d) – Educational supervision (5-1-d) – Bringing before competent authority (5-1-d)
(e) Prevention of spreading of infectious diseases (5-1-e) – Persons of unsound mind (5-1-e) –
Alcoholics (5-1-e) – Drug addicts (5-1-e) – Vagrants (5-1-e)
(f) Prevent unauthorised entry into country (5-1-f) – Expulsion (5-1-f) – Extradition (5-1-f)
2. Prompt information (5-2) – Information in language understood (5-2) – Information on reasons for
arrest (5-2) – Information on charge (5-2)
3. Judge or other officer exercising judicial power (5-3) – Brought promptly before judge or other
officer (5-3) – Trial within a reasonable time (5-3) – Release pending trial (5-3) – Length of pre-trial
detention (5-3) – Reasonableness of pre-trial detention (5-3) – Conditional release (5-3) – Guarantees
to appear for trial (5-3)
4. Review of lawfulness of detention (5-4) – Take proceedings (5-4) – Review by a court (5-4) –
Speediness of review (5-4) – Procedural guarantees of review (5-4) – Order release (5-4)
5. Compensation (5-5)

I. Scope of application
Article 5 § 1 of the Convention

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty
save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ...”
HUDOC keywords
Liberty of person (5-1) – Security of person (5-1) – Deprivation of liberty (5-1) – Procedure prescribed
by law (5-1) – Lawful arrest or detention (5-1)
A. Deprivation of liberty
1. In proclaiming the “right to liberty”, Article 5 contemplates the physical liberty of the person; its
aim is to ensure that no one should be deprived of that liberty in an arbitrary fashion. It is not
concerned with mere restrictions on liberty of movement, which are governed by Article 2 of
Protocol No. 4 (De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], 2017, § 80; Creangă v. Romania [GC], 2012, § 92; Engel
and Others v. the Netherlands, 1976, § 58).
2. The difference between restrictions on movement serious enough to fall within the ambit of a
deprivation of liberty under Article 5 § 1 and mere restrictions of liberty which are subject only to
Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 is one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (De
Tommaso v. Italy [GC], 2017, § 80; Guzzardi v. Italy, 1980, § 93; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, 2010,
§ 314; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], 2012, § 115).
3. A deprivation of liberty is not confined to the classic case of detention following arrest or
conviction, but may take numerous other forms (Guzzardi v. Italy, 1980, § 95).
B. Criteria to be applied
4. The Court does not consider itself bound by the legal conclusions of the domestic authorities as
to whether or not there has been a deprivation of liberty, and undertakes an autonomous
assessment of the situation (Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 71; H.L. v. the United Kingdom,
2004, § 90; H.M. v. Switzerland, 2002, §§ 30 and 48; Creangă v. Romania [GC], 2012, § 92).
5. In order to determine whether someone has been “deprived of his liberty” within the meaning of
Article 5, the starting point must be his concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole
range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in
question (De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], 2017, § 80; Guzzardi v. Italy, 1980, § 92; Medvedyev and Others
v. France [GC], 2010, § 73; Creangă v. Romania [GC], 2012, § 91).
6. The requirement to take account of the “type” and “manner of implementation” of the measure
in question enables the Court to have regard to the specific context and circumstances surrounding
types of restriction other than the paradigm of confinement in a cell. Indeed, the context in which
the measure is taken is an important factor, since situations commonly occur in modern society
where the public may be called on to endure restrictions on freedom of movement or liberty in the
interests of the common good (De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], 2017, § 81; Nada v. Switzerland [GC],
2012, § 226; Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2012, § 59).
7. In determining the distinction between a restriction on liberty of movement and deprivation of
liberty in the context of confinement of foreigners in airport transit zones and reception centres for
the identification and registration of migrants, the factors taken into consideration by the Court may

be summarised as follows: i) the applicants’ individual situation and their choices, ii) the applicable
legal regime of the respective country and its purpose, iii) the relevant duration, especially in the
light of the purpose and the procedural protection enjoyed by applicants pending the events, and iv)
the nature and degree of the actual restrictions imposed on or experienced by the applicants (Z.A.
and Others v. Russia [GC], 2019, § 138; Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], 2019, § 217; R.R. and
Others v. Hungary, 2021, § 74).
8. Even measures intended for protection or taken in the interest of the person concerned may be
regarded as a deprivation of liberty (Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 71).
9. The purpose of measures taken by the authorities depriving individuals of their liberty is not
decisive for the assessment of whether there has in fact been a deprivation of liberty. The Court
takes this into account only at a later stage of its analysis, when examining the compatibility of the
measures with Article 5 § 1 (Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), 2017, § 74).
10. The notion of deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 contains both an
objective element of a person’s confinement in a particular restricted space for a not negligible
length of time, and an additional subjective element in that the person has not validly consented to
the confinement in question (Storck v. Germany, 2005, § 74; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], 2012, § 117).
11. Relevant objective factors to be considered include the possibility to leave the restricted area,
the degree of supervision and control over the person’s movements, the extent of isolation and the
availability of social contacts (Guzzardi v. Italy, 1980, § 95; H.M. v. Switzerland, 2002, § 45; H.L. v. the
United Kingdom, 2004, § 91; Storck v. Germany, 2005, § 73). However, where an eight-year-old child
was left alone in a police station for over twenty-four hours, it was not necessary to assess whether
he had been kept in closed and guarded premises, since he could not be expected to leave the police
station alone (Tarak and Depe v. Turkey, 2019, § 61).
12. Where the facts indicate a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1, the
relatively short duration of the detention does not affect this conclusion (Rantsev v. Cyprus and
Russia, 2010, § 317; Iskandarov v. Russia, 2010, § 140, Zelčs v. Latvia, 2020, § 40).
13. An element of coercion in the exercise of police powers of stop and search is indicative of a
deprivation of liberty, notwithstanding the short duration of the measure (Krupko and Others
v. Russia, 2014, § 36; Foka v. Turkey, 2008, § 78; Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, 2010,
§ 57; Shimovolos v. Russia, 2011, § 50; Brega and Others v. Moldova, 2012, § 43).
14. The fact that a person is not handcuffed, put in a cell or otherwise physically restrained does not
constitute a decisive factor in establishing the existence of a deprivation of liberty (M.A. v. Cyprus,
2013, § 193).
15. The right to liberty is too important in a democratic society for a person to lose the benefit of
Convention protection for the single reason that he may have given himself up to be taken into
detention, especially when that person is legally incapable of consenting to, or disagreeing with, the
proposed action (H.L. v. the United Kingdom, 2004, § 90; Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], 2012, § 119; see
also N. v. Romania, 2017, §§ 165-167, where the applicant’s continued detention after the decision
ordering his release was found to be arbitrary, even though the applicant had agreed to remain in
detention until such time as the social services found an appropriate solution to his situation.
16. The fact that a person lacks legal capacity does not necessarily mean that he is unable to
understand and consent to situation (Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], 2012, § 130; Shtukaturov v. Russia,
2008, §§ 107-09; D.D. v. Lithuania, 2012, § 150).
C. Measures adopted within a prison

17. Disciplinary steps imposed within a prison which have effects on conditions of detention cannot
be considered as constituting deprivation of liberty. Such measures must be regarded in normal

circumstances as modifications of the conditions of lawful detention and fall outside the scope of
Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (Stoyan Krastev v. Bulgaria, 2020, § 38); Bollan v. the United Kingdom
(dec.), 2000; see also Munjaz v. the United Kingdom, 2012, where the applicant’s seclusion in a high-
security hospital did not amount to a further deprivation of liberty).
D. Security checks of air travellers

18. Where a passenger has been stopped by border officials during border control in an airport in
order to clarify his situation and where this detention has not exceeded the time strictly necessary to
comply with relevant formalities, no issue arises under Article 5 of the Convention (Gahramanov
v. Azerbaijan (dec.), 2013, § 41; see, by contrast, Kasparov v. Russia, 2016, where the applicant’s
five-hour detention went far beyond the time strictly necessary for verifying the formalities normally
associated with airport travel).
E. Deprivation of liberty outside formal arrest and detention

19. The question of applicability of Article 5 has arisen in a variety of circumstances, including:
▪ the placement of individuals in psychiatric or social care institutions (De Wilde, Ooms and
Versyp v. Belgium, 1971; Nielsen v. Denmark, 1988; H.M. v. Switzerland, 2002; H.L. v. the
United Kingdom, 2004; Storck v. Germany, 2005; A. and Others v. Bulgaria, 2011; Stanev
v. Bulgaria [GC], 2012);
▪ taking of an individual by paramedics and police officers to hospitals (Aftanache
v. Romania, 2020);
▪ confinement in airport transit zones (Z.A. and Others v. Russia [GC], 2019; Amuur v. France,
1996; Shamsa v. Poland, 2003; Mogoş and Others v. Romania (dec.), 2004; Mahdid and
Haddar v. Austria (dec.), 2005; Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, 2008);
▪ confinement in land border transit zones (Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], 2019; R.R. and
Others v. Hungary, 2021);
▪ questioning in a police station (Cazan v. Romania, 2016; I.I. v. Bulgaria, 2005; Osypenko
v. Ukraine, 2010; Salayev v. Azerbaijan, 2010; Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, 2010; Creangă
v. Romania [GC], 2012);
▪ placement in a police car to draw up an administrative-offence report (Zelčs v. Latvia,
2020);
▪ stops and searches by the police (Foka v. Turkey, 2008; Gillan and Quinton v. the United
Kingdom, 2010; Shimovolos v. Russia, 2011);
▪ house search (Stănculeanu v. Romania, 2018);
▪ police escorting (Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), 2017; Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, 2018);
▪ crowd control measures adopted by the police on public order grounds (Austin and Others
v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2012);
▪ house arrest (Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], 2016; Mancini v. Italy, 2001; Lavents
v. Latvia, 2002; Nikolova v. Bulgaria (no. 2), 2004; Dacosta Silva v. Spain, 2006).
▪ holding sea-migrants in reception facilities and on ships (Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC],
2016);
▪ keeping irregular migrants in asylum hotspot facilities (J.R. and Others v. Greece, 2018).
▪ national lockdown on account of the Covid-19 pandemic (Terheş v. Romania (dec), 2021).

F. Positive obligations with respect to deprivation of liberty

20. Article 5 § 1, first sentence, lays down a positive obligation on the State not only to refrain from
active infringement of the rights in question, but also to take appropriate steps to provide protection
against an unlawful interference with those rights to everyone within its jurisdiction (El-Masri v. the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], 2012, § 239).
21. The State is therefore obliged to take measures providing effective protection of vulnerable
persons, including reasonable steps to prevent a deprivation of liberty of which the authorities have
or ought to have knowledge (Storck v. Germany, 2005, § 102).
22. The responsibility of a State is engaged if it acquiesces in a person’s loss of liberty by private
individuals or fails to put an end to the situation (Riera Blume and Others v. Spain, 1999; Rantsev
v. Cyprus and Russia, 2010, §§ 319-21; Medova v. Russia, 2009, §§ 123-25).
II. Lawfulness of the detention under Article 5 § 1

A. Purpose of Article 5
23. The key purpose of Article 5 is to prevent arbitrary or unjustified deprivations of liberty
(Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], 2020, § 311; S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], 2018, § 73;
McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2006, § 30). The right to liberty and security is of the highest
importance in a “democratic society” within the meaning of the Convention (Medvedyev and Others
v. France [GC], 2010, § 76; Ladent v. Poland, 2008, § 45).
24. The Court therefore considers that the unacknowledged detention of an individual is a complete
negation of the fundamentally important guarantees contained in Article 5 of the Convention and
discloses a most grave violation of that provision (El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia [GC], 2012, § 233; Al Nashiri v. Poland, 2014, § 529; Belozorov v. Russia and Ukraine,
2015, § 113). The absence of a record of such matters as the date, time and location of detention,
the name of the detainee, the reasons for the detention and the name of the person effecting it
must be seen as incompatible, inter alia, with the very purpose of Article 5 of the Convention (Kurt
v. Turkey, 1998, § 125). It is also incompatible with the requirement of lawfulness under the
Convention (Anguelova v. Bulgaria, 2002, § 154).
25. No deprivation of liberty will be lawful unless it falls within one of the permissible grounds
specified in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f) of Article 5 § 1 (Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 88; see
also, among recent cases, Aftanache v. Romania, 2020, §§ 92-100; I.S. v. Switzerland, 2020, §§ 46-
60).
26. Three strands of reasoning may be identified as running through the Court’s case-law: the
exhaustive nature of the exceptions, which must be interpreted strictly and which do not allow for
the broad range of justifications under other provisions (Articles 8 to 11 of the Convention in
particular); the repeated emphasis on the lawfulness of the detention, both procedural and
substantive, requiring scrupulous adherence to the rule of law; and the importance of the
promptness or speediness of the requisite judicial controls (under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4) (Selahattin
Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], 2020, § 312; S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], 2018, § 73; Buzadji v. the
Republic of Moldova [GC], 2016, § 84).
27. As regards detention taking place during an international armed conflict, the safeguards under
Article 5 must be interpreted and applied taking into account the context and the provisions of
international humanitarian law (Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2014, §§ 103-106).

28. If a given instance of deprivation of liberty does not fit within the confines of one of the sub-
paragraphs of Article 5, as interpreted by the Court, it cannot be made to fit by an appeal to the
need to balance the interests of the State against those of the detainee (Merabishvili v. Georgia
[GC], 2017, § 298).
B. Compliance with national law

29. In order to meet the requirement of lawfulness, detention must be “in accordance with a
procedure prescribed by law”.
The Convention refers essentially to national law but also, where appropriate, to other applicable
legal standards, including those which have their source in international law (Medvedyev and Others
v. France [GC], 2010, § 79; Toniolo v. San Marino and Italy, 2012, § 46) or European law (Paci
v. Belgium, 2018, § 64 and Pirozzi v. Belgium, 2018, §§ 45-46, concerning detention on the basis of a
European Arrest Warrant). In all cases it establishes the obligation to conform to the substantive and
procedural rules of the laws concerned (ibid.)
30. For example, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 5 where the authorities
had failed to lodge an application for extension of a detention order within the time-limit prescribed
by law (G.K. v. Poland, 2004, § 76). By contrast, an alleged breach of a circular concerning the
manner in which inquiries had to be conducted into certain types of offences did not invalidate the
domestic legal basis for arrest and subsequent detention (Talat Tepe v. Turkey, 2004, § 62). Where
the trial court had refused to release the applicant despite the Constitutional Court’s decision finding
his detention to be unlawful, the applicant’s continued pre-trial detention could not be regarded as
“in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” (Şahin Alpay v. Turkey, 2018, § 118; Mehmet
Hasan Altan v. Turkey, 2018, § 139).
C. Review of compliance with national law

31. While it is normally in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret
and apply domestic law, the position is different in relation to cases where failure to comply with
such law entails a breach of the Convention. In cases where Article 5 § 1 of the Convention is at
stake, the Court must exercise a certain power to review whether national law has been observed
(Creangă v. Romania [GC], 2012, § 101; Baranowski v. Poland, 2007, § 50; Benham v. the United
Kingdom, 1996, § 41). In doing so, the Court must have regard to the legal situation as it stood at the
material time (Włoch v. Poland, 2000, § 114).
D. General principles
32. The requirement of lawfulness is not satisfied merely by compliance with the relevant domestic
law; domestic law must itself be in conformity with the Convention, including the general principles
expressed or implied in it (Plesó v. Hungary, 2012, § 59).
The general principles implied by the Convention to which the Article 5 § 1 case-law refers are the
principle of the rule of law and, connected to the latter, that of legal certainty, the principle of
proportionality and the principle of protection against arbitrariness which is, moreover, the very aim
of Article 5 (Simons v. Belgium (dec.), 2012, § 32).
E. The principle of legal certainty

33. Where deprivation of liberty is concerned it is particularly important that the general principle of
legal certainty be satisfied. It is therefore essential that the conditions for deprivation of liberty
under domestic law be clearly defined and that the law itself be foreseeable in its application, so
that it meets the standard of “lawfulness” set by the Convention, a standard which requires that all

law be sufficiently precise to allow the person – if need be, with appropriate advice – to foresee, to a
degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail
(Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 92; Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], 2013, § 125; Creangă
v. Romania, 2012, § 120; Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], 2010, § 80).
34. Article 5 § 1 thus does not merely refer back to domestic law, it also relates to the “quality of
the law” which implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be
sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application. Factors relevant to this assessment
of the “quality of law” – which are referred to in some cases as “safeguards against arbitrariness” –
will include the existence of clear legal provisions for ordering detention, for extending detention,
and for setting time-limits for detention; and the existence of an effective remedy by which the
applicant can contest the “lawfulness” and “length” of his continuing detention (J.N. v. the United
Kingdom, 2016, § 77).
35. For example, the practice of keeping a person in detention under a bill of indictment without
any specific basis in the national legislation or case-law is in breach of Article 5 § 1 (Baranowski
v. Poland, 2007, §§ 50-58). Likewise, the practice of automatically renewing pre-trial detention
without any precise legislative foundation is contrary to Article 5 § 1 (Svipsta v. Latvia, 2006, § 86).
By contrast, the continued detention of a person on the basis of an order by the Indictment
Chamber requiring further investigations, without issuing a formal detention order, did not disclose
a violation of that Article (Laumont v. France, 2001, § 50).
36. Provisions which are interpreted in an inconsistent and mutually exclusive manner by the
domestic authorities will, too, fall short of the “quality of law” standard required under the
Convention (Nasrulloyev v. Russia, 2007, § 77; Ječius v. Lithuania, 2000, §§ 53-59). However, in the
absence of any case-law, the Court is not called upon to give its own interpretation of national law.
Therefore, it may be reluctant to conclude that the national courts have failed to act in accordance
with a procedure prescribed by law (Włoch v. Poland, 2000, §§ 114-16; Winterwerp v. the
Netherlands, 1979, §§ 48-50).
37. Although diplomatic notes are a source of international law, detention of crew on the basis of
such notes is not lawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention insofar as they are not
sufficiently precise and foreseeable. In particular, the lack of specific reference to the potential
arrest and detention of crew members will fall foul of the requirements of legal certainty and
foreseeability under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], 2010,
§§ 96-100).
38. The requirements of legal certainty become even more paramount where a judge has been
deprived of his liberty (Baş v. Turkey, 2020, § 158). Where domestic law has granted judicial
protection to members of the judiciary in order to safeguard the independent exercise of their
functions, it is essential that such arrangements should be properly complied with. Given the
prominent place that the judiciary occupies among State organs in a democratic society and the
growing importance attached to the separation of powers and to the necessity of safeguarding the
independence of the judiciary, the Court must be particularly attentive to the protection of members
of the judiciary when reviewing the manner in which a detention order was implemented from the
standpoint of the provisions of the Convention (Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, 2019, § 102; Turan and
Others v. Turkey, 2021, § 82).
F. No arbitrariness
39. In addition, any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the
individual from arbitrariness (S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], 2018, § 74; Witold Litwa v. Poland, 2000,
§ 78).

40. The notion of “arbitrariness” in Article 5 § 1 extends beyond lack of conformity with national
law, so that a deprivation of liberty may be lawful in terms of domestic law but still arbitrary and
thus contrary to the Convention (Creangă v. Romania, 2012, § 84; A. and Others v. the United
Kingdom [GC], 2009, § 164).
41. The notion of arbitrariness varies to a certain extent depending on the type of detention
involved. The Court has indicated that arbitrariness may arise where there has been an element of
bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities; where the order to detain and the execution of
the detention did not genuinely conform to the purpose of the restrictions permitted by the relevant
sub-paragraph of Article 5 § 1; where there was no connection between the ground of permitted
deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention; and where there was no
relationship of proportionality between the ground of detention relied on and the detention in
question (for a detailed overview of the key principles see James, Wells and Lee v. the United
Kingdom, 2012, §§ 191-95; Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2008, §§ 68-74).
42. The speed with which the domestic courts replace a detention order which has either expired or
has been found to be defective is a further relevant element in assessing whether a person’s
detention must be considered arbitrary (Mooren v. Germany [GC], 2009, § 80). Thus, the Court
considers in the context of sub-paragraph (c) that a period of less than a month between the expiry
of the initial detention order and the issuing of a fresh, reasoned detention order following a
remittal of the case from the appeal court to a lower court did not render the applicant’s detention
arbitrary (Minjat v. Switzerland, 2003, §§ 46 and 48). In contrast, a period of more than a year
following a remittal from a court of appeal to a court of lower instance, in which the applicant
remained in a state of uncertainty as to the grounds for his detention on remand, combined with the
lack of a time-limit for the lower court to re-examine his detention, was found to render the
applicant’s detention arbitrary (Khudoyorov v. Russia, 2005, §§ 136-37).
G. Court order
43. A period of detention is, in principle, “lawful” if it is based on a court order. Detention on the
basis of an order later found to be unlawful by a superior court may still be valid under domestic law
(Bozano v. France, 1986, § 55). Detention may remain in accordance with “a procedure prescribed by
law” even though the domestic courts have admitted that there had been flaws in the detention
proceedings but held the detention to be lawful nevertheless (Erkalo v. the Netherlands, 1998,
§§ 55-56). Thus, even flaws in the detention order do not necessarily render the underlying period of
detention unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (Yefimenko v. Russia, 2013, §§ 102-08; Ječius
v. Lithuania, 2000, § 68; Benham v. the United Kingdom, 1996, §§ 42-47).
44. The Court distinguishes between acts of domestic courts which are within their jurisdiction and
those which are in excess of jurisdiction (ibid., §§ 43 et seq.). Detention orders have been found to
be ex facie invalid in cases where the interested party did not have proper notice of the hearing
(Khudoyorov v. Russia, 2005, § 129), the domestic courts had failed to conduct the means inquiry
required by the national legislation (Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, 2005, §§ 108 and 116),
or the lower courts had failed properly to consider alternatives to imprisonment (ibid., § 113). On
the other hand, where there was no evidence that the national courts’ conduct amounted to a
“gross or obvious irregularity”, the Court held that the detention was lawful (ibid., § 114).
H. Reasoning of decisions and the requirement of non-arbitrariness

45. The absence or lack of reasoning in detention orders is one of the elements taken into account
by the Court when assessing the lawfulness of detention under Article 5 § 1 (S., V. and A. v. Denmark
[GC], 2018, § 92). Thus, the absence of any grounds given by the judicial authorities in their decisions
authorising detention for a prolonged period of time may be incompatible with the principle of
protection from arbitrariness enshrined in Article 5 § 1 (Stašaitis v. Lithuania, 2002, §§ 66-67).

Likewise, a decision which is extremely laconic and makes no reference to any legal provision which
would permit detention will fail to provide sufficient protection from arbitrariness (Khudoyorov
v. Russia, 2005, § 157).
46. However, the Court may consider the applicant’s detention to be in conformity with the
domestic legislation despite the lack of reasons in the detention order where the national courts
were satisfied that there had been some grounds for the applicant’s detention on remand (Minjat
v. Switzerland, 2003, § 43). Furthermore, where the domestic courts had quashed the detention
order for lack of reasons but considered that there had been some grounds for the applicant’s
detention, the refusal to order release of the detainee and remittal of the case to the lower courts
for determination of the lawfulness of detention did not amount to a violation of Article 5 § 1 (ibid.,
§ 47).
47. A breach of Article 5 § 1 has occurred where a lack of any reasons for ordering pre-trial
detention was combined with a failure to fix its duration. However, there is no requirement for the
national courts to fix the duration of pre-trial detention in their decisions regardless of how the
matter is regulated in domestic law (Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], 2017, § 199; Oravec v. Croatia,
2017, § 55). The existence or absence of time-limits is one of a number of factors which the Court
might take into consideration in its overall assessment of whether domestic law was foreseeable in
its application and provided safeguards against arbitrary detention (J.N. v. the United Kingdom,
2016, § 90; Meloni v. Switzerland, 2008, § 53.)
48. Moreover, authorities should consider less intrusive measures than detention (Ambruszkiewicz
v. Poland, 2006, § 32).
I. Some acceptable procedural flaws

49. The following procedural flaws have been found not to render the applicant’s detention
unlawful:
▪ a failure to notify the detention order officially to the accused did not amount to a “gross
or obvious irregularity” in the exceptional sense indicated by the case-law given that the
authorities genuinely believed that the order had been notified to the applicant
(Marturana v. Italy, 2008, § 79; but see Voskuil v. the Netherlands, 2007, in which the Court
found a violation where there had been a failure to notify a detention order within the
time-limit prescribed by law: three days instead of twenty-four hours);
▪ a mere clerical error in the arrest warrant or detention order which was later cured by a
judicial authority (Nikolov v. Bulgaria, 2003, § 63; Douiyeb v. the Netherlands [GC], 1999,
§ 52);
▪ the replacement of the formal ground for an applicant’s detention in view of the facts
mentioned by the courts in support of their conclusions (Gaidjurgis v. Lithuania (dec.),
2001). A failure to give adequate reasons for such replacement however may lead the
Court to conclude that there has been a breach of Article 5 § 1 (Calmanovici v. Romania,
2008, § 65).
J. Delay in executing order of release

50. It is inconceivable that in a State subject to the rule of law a person should continue to be
deprived of his liberty despite the existence of a court order for his release (Assanidze v. Georgia
[GC], 2004, § 173). The Court however recognises that some delay in carrying out a decision to
release a detainee is understandable and often inevitable. Nevertheless, the national authorities
must attempt to keep it to a minimum (Giulia Manzoni v. Italy, 1997, § 25).

Administrative formalities connected with release cannot justify a delay of more than a few hours
(Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, 2015, § 68, where there was a delay of two days, and Quinn v. France,
1995, §§ 39-43, concerning a delay of eleven hours in executing a decision to release the applicant
“forthwith”).
A wrongful arrest of individuals when the basis for their detention had ceased to exist, as a result of
administrative shortcomings in the transmission of documents between various State bodies,
discloses a breach of Article 5 even if it is of short duration (Kerem Çiftçi v. Turkey, 2021, §§ 32-34,
where the applicant was detained for about an hour and a half on the basis of an arrest warrant
which had been withdrawn one month before).
III. Authorised deprivations of liberty under Article 5 § 1

A. Detention after conviction
Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention

“1. ... No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a
procedure prescribed by law:
(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;”
HUDOC keywords
Deprivation of liberty (5-1) – Procedure prescribed by law (5-1) – Lawful arrest or detention (5-1)
Conviction (5-1-a) – After conviction (5-1-a) – Competent court (5-1-a)
1. Existence of a conviction
51. Article 5 § 1 (a) applies to any “conviction” occasioning deprivation of liberty pronounced by a
court and makes no distinction based on the legal character of the offence of which a person has
been found guilty whether classified as criminal or disciplinary by the internal law of the State in
question (Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 1976, § 68; Galstyan v. Armenia, 2007, § 46).
52. The term signifies both a finding of guilt, and the imposition of a penalty or other measure
involving the deprivation of liberty (Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], 2013, § 125; James, Wells and Lee
v. the United Kingdom, 2012, § 189; M. v. Germany, 2009, § 87; Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium,
1982, § 35; B. v. Austria, 1990, § 38).
53. Matters of appropriate sentencing fall in principle outside the scope of the Convention. It is not
the role of the Court to decide what is the appropriate term of detention applicable to a particular
offence. However, measures relating to the execution of a sentence or to its adjustment can affect
the right to liberty protected by Article 5 § 1, as the actual duration of deprivation of liberty depends
on their application (Aleksandr Aleksandrov v. Russia, 2018, § 22; Khamtokhu and Aksenchik
v. Russia [GC], 2017, §§ 55-56).
54. The provision does not prevent Contracting States from executing orders for detention imposed
by competent courts outside their territory (X. v. Germany, Commission decision of 14 December
1963). Although Contracting States are not obliged to verify whether the proceedings in a foreign
State resulting in the conviction were compatible with all the requirements of Article 6 (Drozd and
Janousek v. France and Spain, 1992, § 110), a conviction can not be the result of a flagrant denial of
justice (Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], 2004, § 461). If a conviction is the result of

proceedings which were “manifestly contrary to the provisions of Article 6 or the principles
embodied therein”, the resulting deprivation of liberty would not be justified under Article 5 § 1 (a)
(Willcox and Hurford v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 2013, § 95, with examples of forms of fairness
amounting to a flagrant denial of justice; see also Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, 2005, §§ 56-58, and
Vorontsov and Others v. Ukraine, 2021, §§ 42-49 concerning application of the principle to domestic
proceedings).
2. Competent court
55. The term “court” denotes bodies which exhibit not only common fundamental features, of
which the most important is independence of the executive and of the parties to the case, but also
the guarantees of judicial procedure (Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 1987, § 61; De Wilde, Ooms and
Versyp v. Belgium, 1971, § 78). The forms of the procedure need not, however, necessarily be
identical in each of the cases where the intervention of a court is required. In order to determine
whether a proceeding provides adequate guarantees, regard must be had to the particular nature of
the circumstances in which such proceeding takes place (ibid.).
56. In addition, the body in question must not have merely advisory functions but must have the
competence to decide the lawfulness of the detention and to order release if the detention is
unlawful (X v. the United Kingdom, 1981, § 61; Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 1987, § 61).
57. A court is not “competent” if its composition is not “established by law” (Yefimenko v. Russia,
2013, §§ 109-111).
3. Detention must follow “after” conviction

58. The term “after” does not simply mean that the detention must follow the conviction in point of
time: in addition, the detention must result from, follow and depend upon or occur by virtue of the
conviction. In short, there must be a sufficient causal connection between the conviction and the
deprivation of liberty at issue (James, Wells and Lee v. the United Kingdom, 2012, § 189; Monnell and
Morris v. the United Kingdom, 1987, § 40; Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], 2013, § 124).
59. However, with the passage of time, the causal link gradually becomes less strong and might
eventually be broken if a position were reached in which a decision not to release and to re-detain
(including the prolonging of preventive detention) were based on grounds unconnected to the
objectives of the legislature or the court or on an assessment that was unreasonable in terms of
those objectives. In those circumstances, a detention that was lawful at the outset would be
transformed into a deprivation of liberty that was arbitrary and, hence, incompatible with Article 5
(ibid., § 124; and H.W. v. Germany, 2013, § 102; M. v. Germany, 2009, § 88, for continued preventive
detention; W.A. v. Switzerland, 2021, §§ 39-45, where the order for the applicant’s preventive
detention made in a reopening procedure was incompatible with the aims of his initial conviction).
60. The Court has found that various forms of preventive detention beyond the prison sentence
constituted an applicant’s detention “after conviction by a competent court.” In such circumstances
the detention at issue was not part of a penalty, but rather ensued from another “measure involving
deprivation of liberty” (see Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, 2015, § 51 with further references).
61. A decision not to release a detainee may become inconsistent with the objectives of the
sentencing court’s detention order if the person concerned continued to be detained on the grounds
of a risk that he or she would reoffend, but the person is, at the same time, deprived of the
necessary means, such as suitable therapy, to demonstrate that he or she was no longer dangerous
(Klinkenbuß v. Germany, 2016, § 47).
62. The reasonableness of the decision to extend a person’s detention in order to protect the public
is called into question where the domestic courts plainly had at their disposal insufficient elements
warranting the conclusion that the person concerned was still dangerous to the public, notably

because the courts failed to obtain indispensable and sufficiently recent expert advice. The question
whether medical expertise was sufficiently recent is not answered by the Court in a static way but
depends on the specific circumstances of the case, in particular, whether there were potentially
significant changes in the applicant’s situation since the last examination by an expert (D.J.
v. Germany, 2017, §§ 59-61). Moreover, when the offender has been detained in the same
institution for a considerable time and his therapeutic treatment has reached a deadlock, it is
particularly important to consult an external expert in order to obtain fresh propositions for
initiating the necessary treatment (Tim Henrik Bruun Hansen v. Denmark, 2019, §§ 77-78).
63. A defendant is considered to be detained “after conviction by a competent court” within the
meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) once the judgment has been delivered at first instance, even where it is
not yet enforceable and remains amenable to appeal (Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, 2015, § 46). The
term “after conviction” cannot be interpreted as being restricted to the case of a final conviction, for
this would exclude the arrest of convicted persons, who appeared for trial while still at liberty. It
cannot be overlooked that the guilt of a person, detained during appeal or review proceedings, has
been established in the course of a trial conducted in accordance with the requirements of Article 6
(Wemhoff v. Germany, 1968, § 9).
64. Article 5 § 1 (a) applies where persons of unsound mind are detained in psychiatric facilities
after conviction (Klinkenbuß v. Germany, 2016, § 49; Radu v. Germany, 2013, § 97; X v. the United
Kingdom, 1981, § 39). However, it will not apply to such cases following an acquittal (Luberti v. Italy,
1984, § 25).
4. Impact of appellate proceedings

65. A period of detention will, in principle, be lawful if it is carried out pursuant to a court order. A
subsequent finding that the court erred under domestic law in making the order will not necessarily
retrospectively affect the validity of the intervening period of detention. The Strasbourg organs have
refused to uphold applications from persons convicted of criminal offences who complain that their
convictions or sentences were found by domestic appellate courts to have been based on errors of
fact or law (Benham v. the United Kingdom, 1996, § 42). However, detention following conviction is
unlawful where it has no basis in domestic law or is arbitrary (Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece,
1997, § 62).
B. Detention for non-compliance with a court order or legal

obligation
Article 5 § 1 (b) of the Convention

...
(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in
order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;”
HUDOC keywords
Lawful order of a court (5-1-b) – Non-compliance with court order (5-1-b) – Secure fulfilment of
obligation prescribed by law (5-1-b)

1. Non-compliance with the order of a court

66. The choice of the language in the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (b) presumes that the person arrested
or detained must have had an opportunity to comply with a court order and has failed to do so
(Beiere v. Latvia, 2011, § 49).
67. Individuals cannot be held accountable for not complying with court orders if they have never
been informed of them (ibid., § 50).
68. A refusal of a person to undergo certain measures or to follow a certain procedure prior to being
ordered to do so by a competent court has no presumptive value in decisions concerning compliance
with such a court order (Petukhova v. Russia, 2013, § 59).
69. The domestic authorities must strike a fair balance between the importance in a democratic
society of securing compliance with a lawful order of a court, and the importance of the right to
liberty. Factors to be taken into consideration include the purpose of the order, the feasibility of
compliance with the order, and the duration of the detention. The issue of proportionality assumes
particular significance in the overall scheme of things (Gatt v. Malta, 2010, § 40).
70. The Convention organs have applied the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (b) to cases concerning, for
example, a failure to pay a court fine (Velinov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 2013;
Airey v. Ireland, Commission decision of 7 July 1977), a refusal to undergo a medical examination
concerning mental health (X. v. Germany, Commission decision of 10 December 1975), or a blood
test ordered by a court (X. v. Austria, Commission decision of 13 December 1979), a failure to
observe residence restrictions (Freda v. Italy, Commission decision of 7 October 1980), a failure to
comply with a decision to hand over children to a parent (Paradis v. Germany (dec.), 2007), a failure
to observe binding-over orders (Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 1998), a breach of bail
conditions (Gatt v. Malta, 2010) and a confinement in a psychiatric hospital (Trutko v. Russia, 2016
and Beiere v. Latvia, 2011, where the domestic proceedings did not provide sufficient guarantees
against arbitrariness.
2. Fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law

71. The second limb of Article 5 § 1 (b) allows for detention only to “secure the fulfilment” of any
obligation prescribed by law. There must therefore be an unfulfilled obligation incumbent on the
person concerned and the arrest and detention must be for the purpose of securing its fulfilment
and not punitive in character. As soon as the relevant obligation has been fulfilled, the basis for
detention under Article 5 § 1 (b) ceases to exist (Vasileva v. Denmark, 2003, § 36; S., V. and A.
v. Denmark [GC], 2018, §§ 80-81).
72. Article 5 § 1 (b) refers back to domestic law as the contents of the obligation, as well as to the
procedure to be observed for imposing and complying with such an obligation (Rozhkov v. Russia
(no. 2), 2017, § 89)
73. The obligation must be of a specific and concrete nature (Ciulla v. Italy, 1989, § 36). A wide
interpretation would entail consequences incompatible with the notion of the rule of law (S., V. and
A. v. Denmark [GC], 2018, § 83; Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 1976, § 69; Iliya Stefanov
v. Bulgaria, 2008, § 72).
74. The obligation not to commit a criminal offence can only be considered as “specific and
concrete” if the place and time of the imminent commission of the offence and its potential victims
have been sufficiently specified. In the context of a duty to refrain from doing something, as distinct
from a duty to perform a specific act, it is necessary, prior to concluding that a person has failed to
satisfy his obligation at issue, that the person concerned was made aware of the specific act which
he or she was to refrain from committing and that the person showed himself or herself not to be

willing to refrain from so doing (Kurt v. Austria [GC], 2021, § 185; Ostendorf v. Germany, 2013, §§ 93-
94).
The duty not to commit a criminal offence in the imminent future cannot be considered sufficiently
concrete and specific, as long as no specific measures have been ordered which have not been
complied with (S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], 2018, § 83).
75. An arrest will only be acceptable in Convention terms if “the obligation prescribed by law”
cannot be fulfilled by milder means (Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, 2011, § 136). The principle of
proportionality further dictates that a balance must be struck between the importance in a
democratic society of securing the immediate fulfilment of the obligation in question, and the
importance of the right to liberty (Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2008, § 70).
76. In this assessment the Court considers the following points relevant: the nature of the obligation
arising from the relevant legislation including its underlying object and purpose; the person being
detained and the particular circumstances leading to the detention; and the length of the detention
(S., V. and A. V. Denmark [GC], 2018, § 75; Vasileva v. Denmark, 2003, § 38; Epple v. Germany, 2005,
§ 37).
77. Situations examined under the second limb of Article 5 § 1 (b) include, for example, an
obligation to submit to a security check when entering a country (McVeigh and Others v. the United
Kingdom, Commission report of 18 March 1981), to disclose details of one’s personal identity
(Vasileva v. Denmark, 2003; Novotka v. Slovakia (dec.), 2003; Sarigiannis v. Italy, 2011), to undergo a
psychiatric examination (Nowicka v. Poland, 2002), to leave a certain area (Epple v. Germany, 2005),
to appear for questioning at a police station (Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, 2008; Osypenko v. Ukraine,
2010 and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, 2011), to keep the peace by not committing a criminal offence
(Ostendorf v. Germany, 2013) and to reveal the whereabouts of attached property to secure
payment of tax debts (Göthlin v. Sweden, 2014).
C. Detention on remand
Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention

...
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the
competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is
reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done
so;”
HUDOC keywords
Bringing before competent legal authority (5-1-c) – Criminal offence (5-1-c) – Reasonable suspicion (5-
1-c) – Reasonably necessary to prevent offence (5-1-c) – Reasonably necessary to prevent fleeing (5-
1-c)
1. Purpose of arrest or detention

78. “Effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority” qualifies all the
three alternative bases for arrest or detention under Article 5 § 1 (c) (Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3), 1961,
§§ 13-14; Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 1978, § 196).

79. A person may be detained under the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (c) only in the context of criminal
proceedings, for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on suspicion of
his having committed an offence (Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], 2020, § 314; Şahin Alpay
v. Turkey, 2018, § 103; Ječius v. Lithuania, 2000, § 50; Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany, 2011, § 72).
80. Pre-trial detention is capable of operating as a preventive measure only to the extent that it is
justified on the grounds of a reasonable suspicion concerning an existing offence in relation to which
criminal proceedings are pending (Kurt v. Austria [GC], 2021, § 187).
81. The second alternative of that provision (“when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent
his committing an offence”) does not permit a policy of general prevention directed against an
individual or a category of individuals who are perceived by the authorities as being dangerous or
having the propensity to commit unlawful acts. This ground of detention does no more than afford
the Contracting States a means of preventing a concrete and specific offence as regards, in
particular, the place and time of its commission and its victim(s). In order for a detention to be
justified under the second limb of Article 5 § 1 (c), the authorities must show convincingly that the
person concerned would in all likelihood have been involved in the concrete and specific offence,
had its commission not been prevented by the detention (Kurt v. Austria [GC], 2021, § 186; S., V. and
A. v. Denmark [GC], 2018, § 89 and 91).
82. The second limb of Article 5 § 1 (c) provides a distinct ground for detention, independent of the
existence of “a reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offence.” It thus applies to
preventive detention outside criminal proceedings (S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], 2018, §§ 114-116,
concerning detention to prevent spectator violence).
83. The existence of the purpose to bring a suspect before a court has to be considered
independently of the achievement of that purpose. The standard imposed by Article 5 § 1 (c) does
not presuppose that the police have sufficient evidence to bring charges at the time of arrest or
while the applicant was in custody (Petkov and Profirov v. Bulgaria, 2014, § 52; Erdagöz v. Turkey,
1997, § 51). The object of questioning during detention under sub-paragraph (c) of Article 5 § 1 is to
further the criminal investigation by way of confirming or dispelling the concrete suspicion
grounding the arrest (Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, 2018, § 125; Brogan and Others v. the United
Kingdom, 1988, §§ 52-54; Labita v. Italy [GC], 2000, § 155; O’Hara v. the United Kingdom, 2001,
§ 36).
84. The “purpose” requirement of bringing a detainee before a court is to be applied with a degree
of flexibility to detention falling under the second limb of Article 5 § 1 (c), in order not to prolong
unnecessarily short preventive detention. When a person is released from preventive detention
after a short period of time, either because the risk has passed or, for example, because a prescribed
short time-limit has expired, the purpose requirement should not constitute an obstacle to
preventive detention (S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], 2018, §§ 118-126).
85. When criminal proceedings were suspended for an unspecified time during the Covid-19
pandemic, the basis of the applicant’s detention during the period in question continued to be for
the purposes of being brought before the competent legal authority (Fenech v. Malta (dec.), 2021,
§§ 83-88).
86. Detention pursuant to Article 5 § 1 (c) must be a proportionate measure to achieve the stated
aim (Ladent v. Poland, 2008, §§ 55-56). It is incumbent on the domestic authorities to convincingly
demonstrate that detention is necessary. Where the authorities order the detention of an individual
pending trial on the grounds of his or her failure to appear before them when summoned, they
should make sure that the individual in question had been given adequate notice and sufficient time
to comply and take reasonable steps to verify that he or she has in fact absconded (Vasiliciuc v. the
Republic of Moldova, 2017, § 40).

87. The necessity test under the second limb of Article 5 § 1 (c) requires that measures less severe
than detention have to be considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the individual or
public interest. The offence in question has to be of a serious nature, entailing danger to life and
limb or significant material damage. In addition, the detention should cease as soon as the risk has
passed, which called for monitoring, the duration of the detention being also a relevant factor
(S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], 2018, § 161).
88. The expression “competent legal authority” has the same meaning as “judge or other officer
authorised by law to exercise judicial power” in Article 5 § 3 (Schiesser v. Switzerland, 1979, § 29).
2. Meaning of “reasonable suspicion”

89. The “reasonableness” of the suspicion on which an arrest must be based forms an essential part
of the safeguard laid down in Article 5 § 1 (c) (Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], 2020, § 314;
Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, 2018, § 124; Fernandes Pedroso v. Portugal, 2018, § 87). The fact
that a suspicion is held in good faith is insufficient in itself (Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey, 2020,
§ 145).
90. A “reasonable suspicion” that a criminal offence has been committed presupposes the existence
of facts or information which would satisfy an objective observer that the person concerned may
have committed an offence (Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], 2020, § 314; Ilgar
Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, 2014, § 88; Erdagöz v. Turkey, 1997, § 51; and Fox, Campbell and Hartley
v. the United Kingdom, 1990, § 32). Therefore, a failure by the authorities to make a genuine inquiry
into the basic facts of a case in order to verify whether a complaint was well-founded disclosed a
violation of Article 5 § 1 (c) (Stepuleac v. Moldova, 2007, § 73; Elçi and Others v. Turkey, 2003, § 674;
Moldoveanu v. the Republic of Moldova, 2021, §§ 52-57, where the applicant had been arrested and
detained on fraud charges following her failure to repay her debt to a third party).
91. Suspicions must be justified by verifiable and objective evidence. Vague and general references
in the authorities’ decisions and documents to a legal provision or unspecified “case material”
cannot be regarded as sufficient to justify the “reasonableness” of a suspicion, in the absence of any
specific statement, information or complaint (Akgün v. Turkey, 2021, §§ 156 and 175).
92. What is reasonable depends on all the circumstances, but the facts which raise a suspicion need
not be of the same level as those necessary to justify a conviction, or even the bringing of a charge
(Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], 2017, § 184).
93. The term “reasonableness” also means the threshold that the suspicion must meet to satisfy an
objective observer of the likelihood of the accusations (Kavala v. Turkey, 2019, § 128).
94. As a rule, problems with the “reasonableness of suspicion” arise at the level of the facts. The
question then is whether the arrest and detention were based on sufficient objective elements to
justify a “reasonable suspicion” that the facts at issue had actually occurred. In addition to its factual
side, the existence of a “reasonable suspicion” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) requires that
the facts relied on can be reasonably considered to fall under one of the sections of the law dealing
with criminal behaviour. Thus, there could clearly not be a “reasonable suspicion” if the acts or facts
held against a detained person did not constitute a crime at the time when they occurred (Selahattin
Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], 2020, § 317; Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey, 2020, §§ 146-147).
95. Further, it must not appear that the alleged offences themselves were related to the exercise of
the applicant’s rights under the Convention (Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], 2020, § 318;
Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey, 2020, § 148; Ragıp Zarakolu v. Turkey, 2020, § 41).
96. In assessing whether the minimum standard for the reasonableness of a suspicion required for
an individual’s arrest has been met, the Court has regard to the general context of the facts of a
particular case including the applicant’s status, the sequence of the events, the manner in which the

investigations were carried out and the authorities’ conduct (Ibrahimov and Mammadov
v. Azerbaijan, 2020, §§ 113-131).
The minimum standard was not met when the applicants’ arrest and detention on suspicion of
having committed the crime of mass disorder were tainted by arbitrariness and formed part of a
strategy of the authorities to hinder and put an end to peaceful protests (Shmorgunov and Others
v. Ukraine, 2021, §§ 464-477).
97. While reasonable suspicion must exist at the time of the arrest and initial detention, it must also
be shown, in cases of prolonged detention, that the suspicion persisted and remained “reasonable”
throughout the detention (Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], 2020, § 320; Ilgar Mammadov
v. Azerbaijan, 2014, § 90).
98. In the context of terrorism, though Contracting States cannot be required to establish the
reasonableness of the suspicion grounding the arrest of a suspected terrorist by disclosing
confidential sources of information, the Court has held that the exigencies of dealing with terrorist
crime cannot justify stretching the notion of “reasonableness” to the point where the safeguard
secured by Article 5 § 1 (c) is impaired (O’Hara v. the United Kingdom, 2001, § 35; Baş v. Turkey,
2020, § 184).
99. The subsequent gathering of evidence in relation to a particular charge may sometimes
reinforce a suspicion linking an applicant to the commission of terrorism-related offences. However,
it cannot form the sole basis of a suspicion justifying detention. In any event, the subsequent
gathering of such evidence does not release the national authorities from their obligation to provide
a sufficient factual basis that could justify a person’s initial detention (Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey
(no. 2) [GC], 2020, § 321). While the context of a case must be taken into account in interpreting and
applying Article 5, the authorities do not have carte blanche to order the detention of an individual
during the state of emergency without any verifiable evidence or information or without a sufficient
factual basis satisfying the minimum requirements of Article 5 § 1 (c) (Akgün v. Turkey, 2021,§ 184).
100. Uncorroborated hearsay evidence of an anonymous informant was held not to be sufficient to
found “reasonable suspicion” of the applicant being involved in mafia-related activities (Labita
v. Italy [GC], 2000, §§ 156 et seq.). By contrast, incriminating statements dating back to a number of
years and later withdrawn by the suspects did not remove the existence of a reasonable suspicion
against the applicant. Furthermore, it did not have an effect on the lawfulness of the arrest warrant
(Talat Tepe v. Turkey, 2004, § 61). The Court has also accepted that concrete and detailed
statements of an anonymous witness can constitute a sufficient factual basis for a reasonable
suspision in the context of organised crime (Yaygin v. Turkey (dec.), 2021, §§ 37-46).
3. The term “offence”

101. The term “offence” has an autonomous meaning, identical to that of “criminal offence” in
Article 6. The classification of the offence under national law is one factor to be taken into account.
However, the nature of the proceedings and the severity of the penalty at stake are also relevant
(Benham v. the United Kingdom, 1996, § 56; S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], 2018, § 90).

D. Detention of a minor
Article 5 § 1 (d) of the Convention

...
(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful
detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;”
HUDOC keywords
Minors (5-1-d) – Educational supervision (5-1-d) – Bringing before competent authority (5-1-d)
1. General
102. The notion of a minor encompasses persons under the age of 18 (Koniarska v. the United
Kingdom (dec.), 2000), in the light of European standards and Resolution CM (72) of the Committee
of Ministers of the Council of Europe (X. v. Switzerland, Commission decision of 14 December 1979).
103. Sub-paragraph d) is not only a provision which permits the detention of a minor. It contains a
specific, but not exhaustive, example of circumstances in which minors might be detained, namely
for the purpose of (a) their educational supervision or (b) bringing them before the competent legal
authority (Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, 2006, § 100).
2. Educational supervision
104. The first limb of Article 5 § 1 d) authorises the deprivation of a minor’s liberty in his or her own
interests, irrespective of the question whether he or she is suspected of having committed a criminal
offence or is simply a child “at risk” (D.L. v. Bulgaria, 2016, § 71).
105. In the context of the detention of minors, the words “educational supervision” must not be
equated rigidly with notions of classroom teaching. Such supervision must embrace many aspects of
the exercise, by the authority, of parental rights for the benefit and protection of the person
concerned (P. and S. v. Poland, 2012, § 147; Ichin and Others v. Ukraine, 2010, § 39; D.G. v. Ireland,
2002, § 80).
“Educational supervision” must nevertheless contain an important core schooling aspect so that
schooling in line with the normal school curriculum should be standard practice for all detained
minors, even when they are placed in a temporary detention centre for a limited period of time, in
order to avoid gaps in their education (Blokhin v. Russia [GC], 2016, § 170).
106. Detention based on “behaviour correction” or the need to prevent a minor from committing
further delinquent acts is not permissible under Article 5 § 1 (d) of the Convention (Blokhin v. Russia
[GC], 2016, § 171).
107. Sub-paragraph (d) does not preclude an interim custody measure being used as a preliminary
to a regime of supervised education, without itself involving any supervised education. In such
circumstances, however, the imprisonment must be speedily followed by actual application of such a
regime in a setting (open or closed) designed and with sufficient resources for the purpose
(Bouamar v. Belgium, 1988, § 50; D.K. v. Bulgaria, 2020, §§ 78-84 where the Court found acceptable

the applicant’s detention for two days in a crisis centre for children before her transfer to a
correctional boarding school).
108. The placement of a minor in a closed institution must also be proportionate to the aim of
“educational supervision.” It must be a measure of last resort, taken in the best interests of the child
and intended to prevent serious risks for the child’s development (D.L. v. Bulgaria, 2016, § 74).
109. If the State has chosen a system of educational supervision involving a deprivation of liberty, it
is obliged to put in place appropriate institutional facilities which meet the security and educational
demands of that system in order to satisfy the requirements of Article 5 § 1 d) (A. and Others
v. Bulgaria, 2011, § 69; D.G. v. Ireland, 2002, § 79).
Regarding implementation of a pedagogical and educational system, the State is to be afforded a
certain margin of appreciation (D.L. v. Bulgaria, 2016, § 77).
110. The Court does not consider that a juvenile holding facility itself constitutes “educational
supervision”, if no educational activities are provided (Ichin and Others v. Ukraine, 2010, § 39).
3. Competent legal authority

111. The second limb of Article 5 § 1 (d) governs the lawful detention of a minor for the purpose of
bringing him or her before the competent legal authority. According to the travaux préparatoires,
this provision was intended to cover detention of a minor prior to civil or administrative
proceedings, while the detention in connection with criminal proceedings was intended to be
covered by Article 5 § 1 (c).
112. However, the detention of a minor accused of a crime during the preparation of a psychiatric
report necessary for the taking of a decision on his mental conditions has been considered to fall
under sub-paragraph d), as being detention for the purpose of bringing a minor before the
competent authority (X. v. Switzerland, Commission decision of 14 December 1979).

E. Detention for medical or social reasons
Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention

...
(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of
persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;”
HUDOC keywords
Liberty of person (5-1) – Security of person (5-1) – Deprivation of liberty (5-1) – Procedure prescribed
by law (5-1) – Lawful arrest or detention (5-1)
Prevention of spreading of infectious diseases (5-1-e) – Persons of unsound mind (5-1-e) – Alcoholics
(5-1-e) – Drug addicts (5-1-e) – Vagrants (5-1-e)
1. General
113. Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention refers to several categories of individuals, namely persons
spreading infectious diseases, persons of unsound mind, alcoholics, drug addicts and vagrants. There
is a link between all those persons in that they may be deprived of their liberty either in order to be
given medical treatment or because of considerations dictated by social policy, or on both medical
and social grounds (Enhorn v. Sweden, 2005, § 43).
114. The reason why the Convention allows these individuals, all of whom are socially maladjusted,
to be deprived of their liberty is not only that they may be a danger to public safety but also that
their own interests may necessitate their detention (ibid.; Guzzardi v. Italy, 1980, § 98 in fine).
2. Prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases

115. The essential criteria when assessing the “lawfulness” of the detention of a person “for the
prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases” are:
▪ whether the spreading of the infectious disease is dangerous to public health or safety; and
▪ whether detention of the person infected is the last resort in order to prevent the
spreading of the disease, because less severe measures have been considered and found to
be insufficient to safeguard the public interest.
When these criteria are no longer fulfilled, the basis for the deprivation of liberty ceases to exist
(Enhorn v. Sweden, 2005, § 44).
3. Detention of persons of unsound mind

116. The term “a person of unsound mind” does not lend itself to precise definition since psychiatry
is an evolving field, both medically and in social attitudes. However, it cannot be taken to permit the
detention of someone simply because his or her views or behaviour deviate from established norms
(Rakevich v. Russia, 2003, § 26).
The term must be given an autonomous meaning, without the Court being bound by the
interpretation of the same or similar terms in domestic legal orders (Petschulies v. Germany, 2016,
§§ 74-77). It is not a requirement that the person concerned suffered from a condition which would

be such as to exclude or diminish his criminal responsibility under domestic criminal law when
committing an offence (Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], 2018, § 149).
117. An individual cannot be deprived of his liberty as being of “unsound mind” unless the following
three minimum conditions are satisfied (Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], 2018, § 127; Stanev v. Bulgaria
[GC], 2012, § 145; D.D. v. Lithuania, 2012, § 156; Kallweit v. Germany, 2011, § 45; Shtukaturov
v. Russia, 2008, § 114; Varbanov v. Bulgaria, 2000,§ 45; and Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 1979,
§ 39):
▪ the individual must be reliably shown, by objective medical expertise, to be of unsound
mind, unless emergency detention is required;
▪ the individual’s mental disorder must be of a kind to warrant compulsory confinement. The
deprivation of liberty must be shown to have been necessary in the circumstances;
▪ the mental disorder, verified by objective medical evidence, must persist throughout the
period of detention.
118. Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention does not specify the possible acts, punishable under the
criminal law, for which an individual may be detained as being “of unsound mind”. Nor does that
provision identify the commission of a previous offence as a precondition for detention (Denis and
Irvine v. Belgium [GC], 2021, § 168).
119. No deprivation of liberty of a person considered to be of unsound mind may be deemed in
conformity with Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention if it has been ordered without seeking the opinion
of a medical expert (Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland, 2014, § 59; S.R. v. the Netherlands (dec.), 2012, § 31).
Where no other possibility exists, for instance because of a refusal of the person concerned to
appear for an examination, at least a medical expert’s assessment on the basis of the case file of the
actual state of that person’s mental health must be sought, failing which it cannot be maintained
that the person has reliably been shown to be of unsound mind (D.C. v. Belgium, 2021, §§ 87, 98-
101; Constancia v. the Netherlands (dec.), 2015, § 26, where the Court allowed other existing
information to be thus substituted for a medical examination of the applicant’s mental state).
120. As to the second of the above conditions, the detention of a mentally disordered person may
be necessary not only where the person needs therapy, medication or other clinical treatment to
cure or alleviate his condition, but also where the person needs control and supervision to prevent
him, for example, causing harm to himself or other persons (Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], 2018, § 133;
Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, 2003, § 52).
Article 5 § 1 (e) authorises the confinement of a mentally disordered person even where no medical
treatment is envisaged, but such a measure must be duly justified by the seriousness of the person’s
state of health and the need to protect the person concerned or others (N. v. Romania, 2017, § 151).
121. A mental condition must be of a certain gravity in order to be considered as a “true” mental
disorder (Glien v. Germany, 2013, § 85). To be qualified as a true mental disorder for the purposes of
sub-paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1, the mental disorder in question must be so serious as to
necessitate treatment in an institution appropriate for mental health patients (Ilnseher v. Germany
[GC], 2018, § 129; Petschulies v. Germany, 2016, § 76).
122. In deciding whether an individual should be detained as a person “of unsound mind”, the
national authorities are to be recognised as having a certain discretion since it is in the first place for
the national authorities to evaluate the evidence adduced before them in a particular case (Ilnseher
v. Germany [GC], 2018, § 128; Plesó v. Hungary, 2012, § 61; H.L. v. the United Kingdom, 2004, § 98).
The competent domestic authority must subject the expert advice before it to a strict scrutiny and
reach its own decision on whether the person concerned suffered from a mental disorder (Ilnseher
v. Germany [GC], 2018, § 132).

123. The relevant time at which a person must be reliably established to be of unsound mind, for
the requirements of sub-paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1, is the date of the adoption of the measure
depriving that person of his liberty as a result of that condition (Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], 2018,
§ 134; O.H. v. Germany, 2011, § 78). However, changes, if any, to the mental condition of the
detainee following the adoption if the detention order must be taken into account (Ilnseher
v. Germany [GC], 2018, § 134). Medical expert reports relied on by the authorities must therefore be
sufficiently recent (Kadusic v. Switzerland, 2018, §§ 44 and 55).
124. The Convention does not require the authorities, when assessing the persistence of mental
disorders, to take into account the nature of the acts committed by the individual concerned which
gave rise to his or her compulsory confinement (Denis and Irvine v. Belgium [GC], 2021, § 169).
125. When the medical evidence points to recovery, the authorities may need some time to
consider whether to terminate an applicant’s confinement (Luberti v. Italy, 1984, § 28). However,
the continuation of deprivation of liberty for purely administrative reasons is not justified (R.L. and
M.-J.D. v. France, 2004, § 129).
126. The detention of persons of unsound mind must be effected in a hospital, clinic, or other
appropriate institution authorised for the detention of such persons (L.B. v. Belgium, 2012, § 93;
Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 1985, § 44; O.H. v. Germany, 2011, § 79).
A lack of available spaces in a suitable institution cannot justify the continued detention in an
ordinary prison of a person suffering from psychiatric disorders (Sy v. Italy (dec.), 2022, § 135).
127. By contrast, a person can be placed temporarily in an establishment not specifically designed
for the detention of mental health patients before being transferred to the appropriate institution,
provided that the waiting period is not excessively long (Pankiewicz v. Poland, 2008, §§ 44-45;
Morsink v. the Netherlands, 2004, §§ 67-69; Brand v. the Netherlands, 2004, §§ 64-66).
128. In view of an intrinsic link between the lawfulness of a deprivation of liberty and its conditions
of execution, the detention of a person of unsound mind on the basis of the original detention order
can become lawful once that person is transferred from an institution unsuitable for mental health
patients to a suitable institution (Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], 2018, §§ 140-141).
129. The administration of suitable therapy has become a requirement of the wider concept of the
“lawfulness” of the deprivation of liberty. Any detention of mentally ill persons must have a
therapeutic purpose, aimed at curing or alleviating their mental-health condition, including, where
appropriate, bringing about a reduction in or control over their dangerousness (Rooman v. Belgium
[GC], 2019, § 208).
130. The deprivation of liberty under Article 5 § 1(e) thus has a dual function: on the one hand, the
social function of protection, and on the other a therapeutic function that is related to the individual
interest of the person of unsound mind in receiving an appropriate and individualised form of
therapy or course of treatment. Appropriate and individualised treatment is an essential part of the
notion of “appropriate institution” (Rooman v. Belgium [GC], 2019, § 210).
131. Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention also affords procedural safeguards related to the judicial
decisions authorising a person’s involuntary hospitalisation (M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2), 2015, § 114). The
notion of “lawfulness” requires a fair and proper procedure offering the person concerned sufficient
protection against arbitrary deprivation of liberty (V.K. v. Russia, 2017, § 33; X. v. Finland, 2012,
§ 148, concerning the lack of adequate safeguards in respect of the continuation of the applicant’s
involuntary confinement.
132. The proceedings leading to the involuntary placement of an individual in a psychiatric facility
must thus provide effective guarantees against arbitrariness given the vulnerability of individuals
suffering from mental disorders and the need to adduce very weighty reasons to justify any
restriction of their rights (M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2), 2015, § 147).

133. It is essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to
be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation. This implies
that an individual confined in a psychiatric institution should, unless there are special circumstances,
receive legal assistance in the proceedings relating to the continuation, suspension or termination of
his confinement (ibid., §§ 152 and 153; N. v. Romania, 2017, § 196).
134. The mere appointment of a lawyer, without that lawyer actually providing legal assistance in
the proceedings, could not satisfy the requirements of necessary “legal assistance” for persons
confined as being of “unsound mind”. An effective legal representation of persons with disabilities
requires an enhanced duty of supervision of their legal representatives by the competent domestic
courts (M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2), 2015, § 154; see also V.K. v. Russia, 2017, concerning a failure of a
court-appointed lawyer to provide effective legal assistance and a manifest failure of the domestic
courts to take that defect into consideration).
4. Detention of alcoholics and drug addicts

135. Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention should not be interpreted as only allowing the detention of
“alcoholics” in the limited sense of persons in a clinical state of “alcoholism”, because nothing in the
text of this provision prevents that measure from being applied by the State to an individual abusing
alcohol, in order to limit the harm caused by alcohol to himself and the public, or to prevent
dangerous behaviour after drinking (Kharin v. Russia, 2011, § 34).
136. Therefore, persons who are not medically diagnosed as “alcoholics”, but whose conduct and
behaviour under the influence of alcohol pose a threat to public order or themselves, can be taken
into custody for the protection of the public or their own interests, such as their health or personal
safety (Hilda Hafsteinsdóttir v. Iceland, 2004, § 42). That does not mean however that Article 5
§ 1 (e) permits the detention of an individual merely because of his alcohol intake (Petschulies
v. Germany, 2016, § 65; Witold Litwa v. Poland, 2000, §§ 61-62).
5. Vagrants
137. The case-law on “vagrants” is scarce. The scope of the provision encompasses persons who
have no fixed abode, no means of subsistence and no regular trade or profession. These three
conditions, inspired by the Belgian Criminal Code, are cumulative: they must be fulfilled at the same
time with regard to the same person (De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 1971, § 68).
F. Detention of a foreigner
Article 5 § 1 (f) of the Convention

...
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the
country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.”
HUDOC keywords
Prevent unauthorised entry into country (5-1-f) – Expulsion (5-1-f) – Extradition (5-1-f)

1. Detention to prevent unauthorised entry into country

138. Article 5 § 1 (f) allows States to control the liberty of aliens in an immigration context (Khlaifia
and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 89). While the first limb of that provision permits the detention of
an asylum seeker or other immigrant prior to the State’s grant of authorisation to enter, such
detention must be compatible with the overall purpose of Article 5, which is to safeguard the right
to liberty and ensure that no-one should be dispossessed of his or her liberty in an arbitrary fashion
(Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2008, §§ 64-66).
139. The question as to when the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (f) ceases to apply, because the individual
has been granted formal authorisation to enter or stay, is largely dependent on national law (Suso
Musa v. Malta, 2013, § 97).
140. The principle that detention should not be arbitrary applies to the detention under the first
limb of Article 5 § 1 (f) in the same manner as it applies to detention under the second limb (Saadi
v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2008, § 73).
141. “Freedom from arbitrariness” in the context of the first limb of Article 5 § 1 (f) therefore means
that such detention must be carried out in good faith; it must be closely connected to the purpose of
preventing unauthorised entry of the person to the country; the place and conditions of detention
should be appropriate, bearing in mind that the measure is applicable not to those who have
committed criminal offences but to aliens who, often fearing for their lives, have fled from their own
country; and the length of the detention should not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose
pursued (ibid., § 74).
142. The Court has expressed reservations as to the practice of the authorities to automatically
place asylum seekers in detention without an individual assessment of their particular needs
(Thimothawes v. Belgium, 2017, § 73; Mahamed Jama v. Malta, 2015, § 146).
143. When reviewing the manner in which the detention order was implemented the Court must
have regard to the particular situation of would-be immigrants (Kanagaratnam v. Belgium, 2011,
§ 80, where the applicant and her three children were kept in a closed facility designed for adults;
Rahimi v. Greece, 2011, § 108, concerning the automatic application of detention to an
unaccompanied minor).
144. In the case of massive arrivals of asylum-seekers at State borders, subject to the prohibition of
arbitrariness, the lawfulness requirement of Article 5 may be considered generally satisfied by a
domestic legal regime that provides, for example, for no more than the name of the authority
competent to order deprivation of liberty in a transit zone, the form of the order, its possible
grounds and limits, the maximum duration of the confinement and, as required by Article 5 § 4, the
applicable avenue of judicial appeal (Z.A. and Others v. Russia [GC], 2019, § 162).
145. Article 5 § 1 (f) does not prevent States from enacting domestic law provisions that formulate
the grounds on which such confinement can be ordered with due regard to the practical realities of
massive influx of asylum-seekers. In particular, subparagraph 1(f) does not prohibit deprivation of
liberty in a transit zone for a limited period on grounds that such confinement is generally necessary
to ensure the asylum seekers’ presence pending the examination of their asylum claims or,
moreover, on grounds that there is a need to examine the admissibility of asylum applications
speedily and that, to that end, structure and adapted procedures have been put in place at the
transit zone (ibid., § 163).
2. Detention with a view to deportation or extradition

146. Article 5 § 1 (f) does not demand that detention be reasonably considered necessary, for
example to prevent the individual from committing an offence or fleeing. In this respect, Article 5
§ 1 (f) provides a different level of protection from Article 5 § 1 (c): all that is required under sub-

paragraph (f) is that “action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition”. It is therefore
immaterial, for the purposes of its application, whether the underlying decision to expel can be
justified under national or Convention law (Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 1996, § 112; Čonka
v. Belgium, 2002, § 38; Nasrulloyev v. Russia, 2007, § 69; Soldatenko v. Ukraine, 2008, § 109).
A test of necessity of detention may still be required under domestic legislation (Muzamba Oyaw
v. Belgium (dec.), 2017, § 36; J.R. and Others v. Greece, 2018, § 111).
147. The Court has nevertheless regard to the specific situation of the detained individuals and any
particular vulnerability (such as health or age) which may render their detention inappropriate
(Thimothawes v. Belgium, 2017, §§ 73, 79-80)
When a child is involved the Court has considered that, by way of exception, the deprivation of
liberty must be necessary to fulfil the aim pursued, namely to secure the family’s removal (A.B. and
Others v. France, 2016, § 120). The presence in a detention centre of a child accompanying his or her
parents will comply with Article 5 § 1 (f) only where the national authorities can establish that this
measure of last resort has been taken after actual verification that no other measure involving a
lesser restriction of their freedom could be put in place (ibid., § 123).
148. Detention may be justified for the purposes of the second limb of Article 5 § 1 (f) by enquiries
from the competent authorities, even if a formal request or an order of extradition has not been
issued, given that such enquires may be considered “actions” taken in the sense of the provision (X.
v. Switzerland, Commission decision of 9 December 1980).
149. Any deprivation of liberty under the second limb of Article 5 § 1 (f) will be justified only for as
long as deportation or extradition proceedings are in progress. If such proceedings are not
prosecuted with due diligence, the detention will cease to be permissible under Article 5 § 1 (f)
(Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 90; A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2009, § 164;
Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, 2013, § 72; Shiksaitov v. Slovakia, 2020, § 56, with examples of cases
disclosing a violation of that provision; Sy v. Italy (dec.), 2022, § 79, concerning detention in
execution of a European Arrest Warrant).
150. To avoid being branded as arbitrary, detention under Article 5 § 1 (f) must be carried out in
good faith; it must be closely connected to the ground of detention relied on by the Government;
the place and conditions of detention should be appropriate; and the length of the detention should
not exceed that reasonably required for the purpose pursued (A. and Others v. the United Kingdom,
2009, § 164; Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v. Belgium, 2011, §§ 117-19 with further references).
151. Detention with a view to expulsion should not be punitive in nature and should be
accompanied by appropriate safeguards (Azimov v. Russia, 2013, § 172).
152. The domestic authorities have an obligation to consider whether removal is a realistic prospect
and whether detention with a view to removal is from the outset, or continues to be, justified (Al
Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2), 2019, § 98). There must procedural safeguards in place
capable of preventing the risk of arbitrary detention pending expulsion (Kim v. Russia, 2014, § 53).
153. In its assessment of whether domestic law provides sufficient procedural safeguards against
arbitrariness, the Court may take into account the existence or absence of time-limits for detention
as well as the availability of a judicial remedy. However, Article 5 § 1(f) does not require States to
establish a maximum period of detention pending deportation or automatic judicial review of
immigration detention. The case-law demonstrates that compliance with time-limits under domestic
law or the existence of automatic judicial review will not in themselves guarantee that a system of
immigration detention complies with the requirements of Article 5 § 1(f) of the Convention (J.N.
v. the United Kingdom, 2016, §§ 83-96).

However, where fixed time-limits exist, a failure to comply with them may be relevant to the
question of “lawfulness”, as detention exceeding the period permitted by domestic law is unlikely to
be considered to be “in accordance with the law” (Komissarov v. the Czech Republic, 2022, §§ 50-52).
154. Article 5 § 1 (f) or other sub-paragraphs do not permit a balance to be struck between the
individual’s right to liberty and the State’s interest in protecting its population from terrorist threat
(A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2009, § 171).
155. The Convention contains no provisions concerning the circumstances in which extradition may
be granted, or the procedure to be followed before extradition may be granted. Subject to it being
the result of cooperation between the States concerned and provided that the legal basis for the
order for the fugitive’s arrest is an arrest warrant issued by the authorities of the fugitive’s State of
origin, even an atypical extradition cannot as such be regarded as being contrary to the Convention
(Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], 2005, § 86; Adamov v. Switzerland, 2011, § 57).
156. When an extradition request concerns a person facing criminal charges in the requesting State,
the requested State is required to act with greater diligence than when an extradition is sought for
the purposes of enforcing a sentence, in order to secure the protection of the rights of the person
concerned (Gallardo Sanchez v. Italy, 2015, § 42).
157. As regards extradition arrangements between States when one is a party to the Convention
and the other is not, the rules established by an extradition treaty or, in the absence of any such
treaty, the cooperation between the States concerned are also relevant factors to be taken into
account for determining whether the arrest that has led to the subsequent complaint to the Court
was lawful. The fact that a fugitive has been handed over as a result of cooperation between States
does not in itself make the arrest unlawful and does not therefore give rise to any problem under
Article 5 (Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], 2005, § 87).
158. The implementation of an interim measure following an indication by the Court to a State Party
that it would be desirable not to return an individual to a particular country does not in itself have
any bearing on whether the deprivation of liberty to which that individual may be subject complies
with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, 2007, § 74).
Detention should still be lawful and not arbitrary (Azimov v. Russia, 2013, § 169).
The fact that the application of such a measure prevents the individual’s deportation does not
render his detention unlawful, provided that the expulsion proceedings are still pending and the
duration of his continued detention is not unreasonable (S.P. v. Belgium (dec.), 2011; Yoh-Ekale
Mwanje v. Belgium, 2011, § 120).1
1
For further details concerning detention in the context of immigration, see Guide on case-law of the
Convention – Immigration.

IV. Guarantees for persons deprived of liberty

A. Information on the reasons for arrest (Article 5 § 2)

“2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the
reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.”
HUDOC keywords
Prompt information (5-2) – Information in language understood (5-2) – Information on reasons for
arrest (5-2) – Information on charge (5-2)
1. Applicability
159. The words used in Article 5 § 2 should be interpreted autonomously and, in particular, in
accordance with the aim and purpose of Article 5 which is to protect everyone from arbitrary
deprivations of liberty. The term “arrest” extends beyond the realm of criminal law measures and
the words “any charge” do not indicate a condition of applicability but an eventuality which is taken
into account. Article 5 § 4 does not make any distinction between persons deprived of their liberty
on the basis of whether they have been arrested or detained. Therefore, there are no grounds for
excluding the latter from the scope of Article 5 § 2 (Van der Leer v. the Netherlands, 1990, §§ 27-28)
which extends to detention for the purposes of extradition (Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and
Russia, 2005, §§ 414-15) and medical treatment (Van der Leer v. the Netherlands, 1990, §§ 27-28; X
v. the United Kingdom, 1981, § 66) and also applies where persons have been recalled to places of
detention following a period of conditional release (X. v. Belgium, Commission decision of 2 April
1973).
2. Purpose
160. Article 5 § 2 contains the elementary safeguard that any person arrested should know why he
is being deprived of his liberty and is an integral part of the scheme of protection afforded by
Article 5 (Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 115). Where a person has been informed of the
reasons for his arrest or detention, he may, if he sees fit, apply to a court to challenge the lawfulness
of his detention in accordance with Article 5 § 4 (Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom,
1990, § 40; Čonka v. Belgium, 2002, § 50).
161. Any person who is entitled to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of his detention decided
speedily cannot make effective use of that right unless he is promptly and adequately informed of
the reasons why he has been deprived of his liberty (Van der Leer v. the Netherlands, 1990, § 28;
Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, 2005, § 413; Grubnyk v. Ukraine, 2020, §§ 97 and 99).
3. Person to whom the reasons must be provided

162. It is plain from the wording of Article 5 § 2 that the duty on States is to furnish specific
information to the individual or his representative (Saadi v. the United Kingdom, 2006, § 53,
confirmed by the Grand Chamber in 2008). If the applicant is incapable of receiving the information,
the relevant details must be given to those persons who represent his interests such as a lawyer or

guardian (X. v. the United Kingdom, Commission report of 16 July 1980, § 106; Z.H. v. Hungary, 2012,
§§ 42-43).
4. Reasons must be provided “promptly”

163. Whether the promptness of the information conveyed is sufficient must be assessed in each
case according to its special features. However, the reasons need not be related in their entirety by
the arresting officer at the very moment of the arrest (Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 115;
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 1990, § 40; Murray v. the United Kingdom [GC],
1994, § 72).
164. The constraints of time imposed by the notion of promptness will be satisfied where the
arrested person is informed of the reasons for his arrest within a few hours (Kerr v. the United
Kingdom (dec.), 1999; Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 1990, § 42).
5. Manner in which the reasons are provided

165. The reasons do not have to be set out in the text of any decision authorising detention and do
not have to be in writing or in any special form (X. v. Germany, Commission decision of 13 December
1978; Kane v. Cyprus (dec.), 2011).
However, if the condition of a person with intellectual disability is not given due consideration in this
process, it cannot be said that he was provided with the requisite information enabling him to make
effective and intelligent use of the right ensured by Article 5 § 4 to challenge the lawfulness of
detention unless a lawyer or another authorised person was informed in his stead (Z.H. v. Hungary,
2012, § 41).
166. The reasons for the arrest may be provided or become apparent in the course of post-arrest
interrogations or questioning (Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 1990, § 41; Murray
v. the United Kingdom [GC], 1994, § 77; Kerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 1999; Grubnyk v. Ukraine,
2020, §§ 95 and 98).
167. Arrested persons may not claim a failure to understand the reasons for their arrest in
circumstances where they were arrested immediately after the commission of a criminal and
intentional act (Dikme v. Turkey, 2000, § 54) or where they were aware of the details of alleged
offences contained within previous arrest warrants and extradition requests (Öcalan v. Turkey (dec),
2000).
6. Extent of the reasons required

168. Whether the content of the information conveyed is sufficient must be assessed in each case
according to its special features (Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 1990, § 40).
However, a bare indication of the legal basis for the arrest, taken on its own, is insufficient for the
purposes of Article 5 § 2 (ibid., § 41; Murray v. the United Kingdom [GC], 1994, § 76; Kortesis
v. Greece, 2012, §§ 61-62).
169. Arrested persons must be told, in simple, non-technical language that they can understand, the
essential legal and factual grounds for the arrest, so as to be able, if they see fit, to apply to a court
to challenge its lawfulness in accordance with Article 5 § 4 (Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016,
§ 115; J.R. and Others v. Greece, 2018, §§ 123-124; Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom,
1990, § 40; Murray v. the United Kingdom [GC], 1994, § 72). However, Article 5 § 2 does not require
that the information consist of a complete list of the charges held against the arrested person
(Bordovskiy v. Russia, 2005, § 56; Nowak v. Ukraine, 2011, § 63; Gasiņš v. Latvia, 2011, § 53).
170. Where persons are arrested for the purposes of extradition, the information given may be even
less complete (Suso Musa v. Malta, 2013, §§ 113 and 116; Kaboulov v. Ukraine, 2009, § 144;

Bordovskiy v. Russia, 2005, § 56) as arrest for such purposes does not require a decision on the
merits of any charge (Bejaoui v. Greece, Commission decision of 6 April 1995). However, such
persons must nonetheless receive sufficient information so as to be able to apply to a court for the
review of lawfulness provided for in Article 5 § 4 (Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, 2005,
§ 427).
7. In a language which he understands

171. Where the warrant of arrest, if any, is written in a language which the arrested person does not
understand, Article 5 § 2 will be complied with where the applicant is subsequently interrogated,
and thus made aware of the reasons for his arrest, in a language which he understands (Delcourt
v. Belgium, Commission decision of 7 February 1967 referred to in the Commission’s report of 1
October 1968).
172. However, where translators are used for this purpose, it is incumbent on the authorities to
ensure that requests for translation are formulated with meticulousness and precision (Shamayev
and Others v. Georgia and Russia, 2005, § 425).
B. Right to be brought promptly before a judge (Article 5 § 3)

“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article
shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power
...”
HUDOC keywords
Judge or other officer exercising judicial power (5-3) – Brought promptly before judge or other officer
(5-3)
1. Aim of the provision

173. Article 5 § 3 of the Convention provides persons arrested or detained on suspicion of having
committed a criminal offence with a guarantee against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of
liberty (Aquilina v. Malta [GC], 1999, § 47; Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), 2009, § 52).
174. Judicial control of interferences by the executive with the individual’s right to liberty is an
essential feature of the guarantee embodied in Article 5 § 3 (Brogan and Others v. the United
Kingdom, 1988, § 58; Pantea v. Romania, 2003, § 236; Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 1998, § 146).
Judicial control is implied by the rule of law, “one of the fundamental principles of a democratic
society ..., which is expressly referred to in the Preamble to the Convention” and “from which the
whole Convention draws its inspiration” (Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 1988, § 58).
175. Judicial control serves to provide effective safeguards against the risk of ill-treatment, which is
at its greatest in this early stage of detention, and against the abuse of powers bestowed on law
enforcement officers or other authorities for what should be narrowly restricted purposes and
exercisable strictly in accordance with prescribed procedures (Ladent v. Poland, 2008, § 72).
2. Prompt and automatic judicial control

176. The opening part of Article 5 § 3 is aimed at ensuring prompt and automatic judicial control of
police or administrative detention ordered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c)

(De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 1984, § 51; Aquilina v. Malta [GC], 1999,
§§ 48-49).
177. Judicial control on the first appearance of an arrested individual must above all be prompt, to
allow detection of any ill-treatment and to keep to a minimum any unjustified interference with
individual liberty. The strict time constraint imposed by this requirement leaves little flexibility in
interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the
detriment of the individual and the risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this
provision (McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2006, § 33).
178. Article 5 § 3 does not provide for any possible exceptions from the requirement that a person
be brought promptly before a judge or other judicial officer after his or her arrest or detention, not
even on grounds of prior judicial involvement (Bergmann v. Estonia, 2008, § 45).
179. Any period in excess of four days is prima facie too long (Oral and Atabay v. Turkey, 2009, § 43;
McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2006, § 47; Năstase-Silivestru v. Romania, 2007, § 32). Shorter
periods can also breach the promptness requirement if there are no special difficulties or
exceptional circumstances preventing the authorities from bringing the arrested person before a
judge sooner (Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, 2013, §§ 154-59; İpek and Others v. Turkey, 2009, §§ 36-37;
Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, 2008, § 66).
The requirement of promptness is even stricter in a situation where the placement in police custody
follows on from a period of actual deprivation of liberty (Vassis and Others v. France, 2013, § 60,
concerning the detention of a crew on the high seas).
180. Where a person is detained under the second limb of Article 5 § 1 (c) outside the context of
criminal proceedings, the period needed between a person’s arrest for preventive purposes and the
person’s prompt appearance before a judge should be shorter than in the case of pre-trial detention
in criminal proceedings. As a rule, release at a time before prompt judicial control in the context of
preventive detention should be a matter of hours rather than days (S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC],
2018, §§ 133-134).
181. The fact that an arrested person had access to a judicial authority is not sufficient to constitute
compliance with the opening part of Article 5 § 3 (De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the
Netherlands, 1984, § 51; Pantea v. Romania, 2003, § 231).
182. Judicial control of detention must be automatic and cannot be made to depend on a previous
application by the detained person (McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2006, § 34; Varga
v. Romania, 2008, § 52; Viorel Burzo v. Romania, 2009, § 107). Such a requirement would not only
change the nature of the safeguard provided for under Article 5 § 3, a safeguard distinct from that in
Article 5 § 4, which guarantees the right to institute proceedings to have the lawfulness of detention
reviewed by a court. It might even defeat the purpose of the safeguard under Article 5 § 3 which is
to protect the individual from arbitrary detention by ensuring that the act of deprivation of liberty is
subject to independent judicial scrutiny (Aquilina v. Malta [GC], 1999, § 49; Niedbała v. Poland,
2000, § 50).
183. The automatic nature of the review is necessary to fulfil the purpose of the paragraph, as a
person subjected to ill-treatment might be incapable of lodging an application asking for a judge to
review their detention; the same might also be true of other vulnerable categories of arrested
person, such as the mentally frail or those ignorant of the language of the judicial officer (McKay
v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2006, § 34; Ladent v. Poland, 2008, § 74).
3. The nature of the appropriate judicial officer

184. The expression “judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” is a
synonym for “competent legal authority” in Article 5 § 1 (c) (Schiesser v. Switzerland, 1979, § 29).

185. The exercise of “judicial power” is not necessarily confined to adjudicating on legal disputes.
Article 5 § 3 includes officials in public prosecutors’ departments as well as judges sitting in court
(ibid., § 28).
186. The “officer” referred to in paragraph 3 must offer guarantees befitting the “judicial” power
conferred on him by law (ibid., § 30).
187. Formal, visible requirements stated in the “law” as opposed to standard practices are
especially important for the identification of the judicial authority empowered to decide on the
liberty of an individual (Hood v. the United Kingdom [GC], 1999, § 60; De Jong, Baljet and Van den
Brink v. the Netherlands, 1984, § 48).
188. The “officer” is not identical with the “judge” but must nevertheless have some of the latter’s
attributes, that is to say he must satisfy certain conditions each of which constitutes a guarantee for
the person arrested (Schiesser v. Switzerland, 1979, § 31).
4. Independence
189. The first of such conditions is independence of the executive and of the parties. This does not
mean that the “officer” may not be to some extent subordinate to other judges or officers provided
that they themselves enjoy similar independence (ibid.).
190. A judicial officer who is competent to decide on detention may also carry out other duties, but
there is a risk that his impartiality may arouse legitimate doubt on the part of those subject to his
decisions if he is entitled to intervene in the subsequent proceedings as a representative of the
prosecuting authority (Huber v. Switzerland, 1990, § 43; Brincat v. Italy, 1992, § 20).
191. In this respect, objective appearances at the time of the decision on detention are material: if it
then appears that the “officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” may later intervene in
subsequent criminal proceedings on behalf of the prosecuting authority, his independence and
impartiality may be open to doubt (ibid., § 21; Hood v. the United Kingdom, 1999, § 57; Nikolova
v. Bulgaria [GC], 1999, § 49; Pantea v. Romania, 2003, § 236).
5. Procedural requirement
192. The procedural requirement places the “officer” under the obligation of hearing the individual
brought before him or her in person before taking the appropriate decision (Schiesser v. Switzerland,
1979, § 31; De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 1984, § 51; Nikolova v. Bulgaria
[GC], 1999, § 49; Aquilina v. Malta [GC], 1999, § 50).
193. A lawyer’s presence at the hearing is not obligatory (Schiesser v. Switzerland, 1979, § 36).
However, the exclusion of a lawyer from a hearing may adversely affect the applicant’s ability to
present his case (Lebedev v. Russia, 2007, §§ 83-91).
6. Substantive requirement
a. Review of the merits of detention

194. The substantive requirement imposes on the “officer” the obligations of reviewing the
circumstances militating for or against detention and of deciding, by reference to legal criteria,
whether there are reasons to justify detention (Schiesser v. Switzerland, 1979, § 31; Pantea
v. Romania, 2003, § 231). In other words, Article 5 § 3 requires the judicial officer to consider the
merits of the detention (Aquilina v. Malta [GC], 1999, § 47; Krejčíř v. the Czech Republic, 2009, § 89).
195. The initial automatic review of arrest and detention must be capable of examining lawfulness
issues and whether or not there is a reasonable suspicion that the arrested person had committed

an offence, in other words, that detention falls within the permitted exception set out in Article 5
§ 1 (c) (McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2006, § 40; Oral and Atabay v. Turkey, 2009, § 41).
196. The matters which the judicial officer must examine go beyond the question of lawfulness. The
review required under Article 5 § 3, being intended to establish whether the deprivation of the
individual’s liberty is justified, must be sufficiently wide to encompass the various circumstances
militating for or against detention (Aquilina v. Malta [GC], 1999, § 52).
197. The examination of lawfulness may be more limited in scope in the particular circumstances of
a given case than under Article 5 § 4 (Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), 2009, § 58).
b. Power of release
198. If there are no reasons to justify detention, the “officer” must have the power to make a
binding order for the detainee’s release (Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 1998, § 146; Nikolova
v. Bulgaria [GC], 1999, § 49; Niedbała v. Poland, 2000, § 49; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC],
2006, § 40).
199. It is highly desirable in order to minimise delay, that the judicial officer who conducts the first
automatic review of lawfulness and the existence of a ground for detention, also has the
competence to consider release on bail. It is not however a requirement of the Convention and
there is no reason in principle why the issues cannot be dealt with by two judicial officers, within the
requisite time frame. In any event, as a matter of interpretation, it cannot be required that the
examination of bail take place with any more speed than is demanded of the first automatic review,
which the Court has identified as being a maximum four days (ibid., § 47; see also Magee and Others
v. the United Kingdom, 2015, where the absence of a possibility of conditional release during the
early stages of the applicants’ detention did not gave rise to any issues under Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention).
C. Right to trial within a reasonable time or to be released pending

trial (Article 5 § 3)

“3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article
... shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be
conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
HUDOC keywords
Trial within a reasonable time (5-3) – Release pending trial (5-3) – Length of pre-trial detention (5-3) –
Reasonableness of pre-trial detention (5-3) – Conditional release (5-3) – Guarantees to appear for trial
(5-3)
1. Period to be taken into consideration

200. In determining the length of detention pending trial under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the
period to be taken into consideration begins on the day the accused is taken into custody and ends
on the day when the charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see, for example,
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], 2020, § 290; Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, 2018, § 55; Solmaz
v. Turkey, 2007, §§ 23-24; Kalashnikov v. Russia, 2002, § 110; Wemhoff v. Germany, 1968, § 9).
201. In view of the essential link between Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and paragraph 1 (c) of that
Article, a person convicted at first instance cannot be regarded as being detained “for the purpose of

bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an
offence”, as specified in the latter provision, but is in the position provided for by Article 5 § 1 (a),
which authorises deprivation of liberty “after conviction by a competent court” (Belevitskiy v. Russia,
2007, § 99; Piotr Baranowski v. Poland, 2007, § 45; Górski v. Poland, 2005, § 41).
2. General principles
202. The second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either
bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him provisional release pending
trial. Until conviction, he must be presumed innocent, and the purpose of the provision under
consideration is essentially to require his provisional release once his continuing detention ceases to
be reasonable.
203. The question whether a period of time spent in pre-trial detention is reasonable cannot be
assessed in the abstract. Whether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be
assessed on the facts of each case and according to its specific features. Continued detention
therefore can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine
requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the
rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention.
204. The responsibility falls in the first place to the national judicial authorities to ensure that, in a
given case, the pre-trial detention of an accused person does not exceed a reasonable time. To this
end they must, paying due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, examine all the
facts arguing for or against the existence of the above-mentioned demand of public interest
justifying a departure from the rule in Article 5 and must set them out in their decisions on the
applications for release. It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of
the established facts stated by the applicant in his appeals that the Court is called upon to decide
whether or not there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 (Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC],
2016, §§ 89-91; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2006, §§ 41-43).
205. The persistence of a reasonable suspicion is a condition sine qua non for the validity of the
continued detention. But when the national judicial authorities first examine, “promptly” after the
arrest, whether to place the arrestee in pre-trial detention, that suspicion no longer suffices, and the
authorities must also give other relevant and sufficient grounds to justify the detention (Merabishvili
v. Georgia [GC], 2017, § 222, and Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], 2016, § 102). Where such
the grounds continued to justify the deprivation of liberty, the Court must also be satisfied that the
national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings (Buzadji v. the
Republic of Moldova [GC], 2016, § 87; Idalov v. Russia [GC], 2012, § 140).
206. The arguments for and against release must not be “general and abstract” (Boicenco
v. Moldova, 2006, § 142; Khudoyorov v. Russia, 2005, § 173), but contain references to the specific
facts and the applicant’s personal circumstances justifying his detention (Aleksanyan v. Russia, 2008,
§ 179; Rubtsov and Balayan v. Russia, 2018, §§ 30-32).
207. Quasi-automatic prolongation of detention contravenes the guarantees set forth in Article 5
§ 3 (Tase v. Romania, 2008, § 40).
208. It falls on the authorities to establish the persistence of reasons justifying continued pre-trial
detention (Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], 2017, § 234). The burden of proof in these matters should
not be reversed by making it incumbent on the detained person to demonstrate the existence of
reasons warranting his release (Bykov v. Russia [GC], 2009, § 64).
209. Where circumstances that could have warranted a person’s detention may have existed but
were not mentioned in the domestic decisions it is not the Court’s task to establish them and to take
the place of the national authorities which ruled on the applicant’s detention (ibid., § 66; Giorgi

Nikolaishvili v. Georgia, 2009, § 77). It is only by giving a reasoned decision that there can be public
scrutiny of the administration of justice (Tase v. Romania, 2008, § 41).
3. Justification for any period of detention

210. Article 5 § 3 of the Convention cannot be seen as authorising pre-trial detention
unconditionally provided that it lasts no longer than a certain minimum period. Justification for any
period of detention, no matter how short, must be convincingly demonstrated by the authorities
(Idalov v. Russia [GC], 2012, § 140; Tase v. Romania, 2008, § 40; Castravet v. Moldova, 2007, § 33;
Belchev v. Bulgaria, 2004, § 82).
4. Grounds for continued detention

211. The Convention case-law has developed four basic acceptable reasons for refusing bail: (a) the
risk that the accused will fail to appear for trial; (b) the risk that the accused, if released, would take
action to prejudice the administration of justice, or (c) commit further offences, or (d) cause public
disorder (Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], 2016, § 88; Tiron v. Romania, 2009, § 37; Smirnova
v. Russia, 2003, § 59; Piruzyan v. Armenia, 2012, § 94). Those risks must be duly substantiated, and
the authorities’ reasoning on those points cannot be abstract, general or stereotyped (Merabishvili
v. Georgia [GC], 2017, § 222). However, nothing precludes the national judicial authorities from
endorsing or incorporating by reference the specific points cited by the authorities seeking the
imposition of pre-trial detention (ibid., § 227).
a. Danger of absconding
212. The danger of absconding cannot be gauged solely on the basis of the severity of the sentence
risked. It must be assessed with reference to a number of other relevant factors which may either
confirm the existence of a danger of absconding or make it appear so slight that it cannot justify pre-
trial detention (Panchenko v. Russia, 2005, § 106).
213. The risk of absconding has to be assessed in light of the factors relating to the person’s
character, his morals, home, occupation, assets, family ties and all kinds of links with the country in
which he is being prosecuted (Becciev v. Moldova, 2005, § 58).
214. The mere absence of a fixed residence does not give rise to a danger of flight (Sulaoja
v. Estonia, 2005, § 64).
215. The danger of flight necessarily decreases with the passages of time spent in detention
(Neumeister v. Austria, 1968, § 10).
216. When the only remaining reason for detention is the fear that the accused will flee and thus
avoid appearing for trial, he or she must be released pending trial if it is possible to obtain
guarantees that will ensure that appearance (Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], 2017, § 223).
217. While the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk
that an accused might abscond, the gravity of the charges cannot by itself serve to justify long
periods of detention on remand (Idalov v. Russia [GC], 2012, § 145; Garycki v. Poland, 2007, § 47;
Chraidi v. Germany, 2006, § 40; Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, 2001, §§ 80-81).
218. Although, in general, the expression “the state of evidence” may be a relevant factor for the
existence and persistence of serious indications of guilt, it alone cannot justify lengthy detention
(Dereci v. Turkey, 2005, § 38).
b. Obstruction of the proceedings

219. The danger of the accused’s hindering the proper conduct of the proceedings cannot be relied
upon in abstracto, it has to be supported by factual evidence (Becciev v. Moldova, 2005, § 59).

220. The risk of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses can be accepted at the initial stages of
the proceedings (Jarzyński v. Poland, 2005, § 43). However, it cannot be based only on the likelihood
of a severe penalty, but must be linked to specific facts (Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], 2017, § 224).
221. In the long term, however, the requirements of the investigation do not suffice to justify the
detention of a suspect: in the normal course of events the risks alleged diminish with the passing of
time as the inquiries are effected, statements taken and verifications carried out (Clooth v. Belgium,
1991, § 44).
222. In cases concerning organised criminal activities or gangs, the risk that a detainee, if released,
might bring pressure to bear on witnesses or other co-suspects, or otherwise obstruct the
proceedings, is often particularly high (Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, 2018, § 61; Podeschi v. San Marino,
2017, § 149; Staykov v. Bulgaria, 2021, § 83).
c. Repetition of offences
223. The seriousness of a charge may lead the judicial authorities to place and leave a suspect in
detention on remand in order to prevent any attempts to commit further offences. It is however
necessary that the danger be a plausible one and the measure appropriate, in the light of the
circumstances of the case and in particular the past history and the personality of the person
concerned (Clooth v. Belgium, 1991, § 40).
224. Previous convictions could give a ground for a reasonable fear that the accused might commit a
new offence (Selçuk v. Turkey, 2006, § 34; Matznetter v. Austria, 1969, § 9).
225. It cannot be concluded from the lack of a job or a family that a person is inclined to commit
new offences (Sulaoja v. Estonia, 2005, § 64).
d. Preservation of public order

226. It is accepted that, by reason of their particular gravity and public reaction to them, certain
offences may give rise to a social disturbance capable of justifying pre-trial detention, at least for a
time. In exceptional circumstances this factor may therefore be taken into account for the purposes
of the Convention, in any event in so far as domestic law recognises the notion of disturbance to
public order caused by an offence.
227. However, this ground can be regarded as relevant and sufficient only provided that it is based
on facts capable of showing that the accused’s release would actually disturb public order. In
addition, detention will continue to be legitimate only if public order remains actually threatened; its
continuation cannot be used to anticipate a custodial sentence (Letellier v. France, 1991, § 51; I.A.
v. France, 1998, § 104; Prencipe v. Monaco, 2009, § 79; Tiron v. Romania, 2009, §§ 41-42).
228. The protection of public order is particularly pertinent in cases involving charges of grave
breaches of fundamental human rights, such as war crimes against civilian population (Milanković
and Bošnjak v. Croatia, 2016, § 154).
5. Special diligence
229. The complexity and special characteristics of the investigation are factors to be considered in
ascertaining whether the authorities displayed “special diligence” in the proceedings (Scott v. Spain,
1996, § 74).
230. The right of an accused in detention to have his case examined with particular expedition must
not unduly hinder the efforts of the judicial authorities to carry out their tasks with proper care
(Shabani v. Switzerland, 2009, § 65; Sadegül Özdemir v. Turkey, 2005, § 44).

231. A temporary suspension of criminal proceedings for a period of approximately three months
due to the exceptional circumstances surrounding the Covid-19 pandemic has been found to be in
compliance with the duty of special diligence when the proceedings had been actively pursued both
before and after the emegency measures had been put in place (Fenech v. Malta (dec.), 2021, § 96).
6. Alternative measures
232. When deciding whether a person should be released or detained, the authorities are obliged to
consider alternative measures of ensuring his appearance at trial (Idalov v. Russia [GC], 2012, § 140).
That provision proclaims not only the right to “trial within a reasonable time or to release pending
trial” but also lays down that “release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial”
(Khudoyorov v. Russia, 2005, § 183; Lelièvre v. Belgium, 2007, § 97; Shabani v. Switzerland, 2009,
§ 62).
7. Bail
233. The guarantee provided for by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention is designed to ensure not the
reparation of loss but, in particular, the appearance of the accused at the hearing. Its amount must
therefore be assessed principally “by reference to [the accused], his assets and his relationship with
the persons who are to provide the security, in other words to the degree of confidence that is
possible that the prospect of loss of the security or of action against the guarantors in case of his
non-appearance at the trial will act as a sufficient deterrent to dispel any wish on his part to
abscond” (Gafà v. Malta, 2018, § 70; Mangouras v. Spain [GC], 2010, § 78; Neumeister v. Austria,
1968, § 14).
234. Bail may only be required as long as reasons justifying detention prevail (Muşuc v. Moldova,
2007, § 42; Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, 2009, § 139). If the risk of absconding can be avoided by
bail or other guarantees, the accused must be released, bearing in mind that where a lighter
sentence could be anticipated, the reduced incentive for the accused to abscond should be taken
into account (Vrenčev v. Serbia, 2008, § 76). The authorities must take as much care in fixing
appropriate bail as in deciding whether or not the accused’s continued detention is indispensable
(Piotr Osuch v. Poland, 2009, § 39; Bojilov v. Bulgaria, 2004, § 60; Skrobol v. Poland, 2005, § 57).
235. Furthermore, the amount set for bail must be duly justified in the decision fixing bail
(Georgieva v. Bulgaria, 2008, §§ 15 and 30-31) and must take into account the accused’s means
(Gafà v. Malta, 2018, § 70; Hristova v. Bulgaria, 2006, § 111) and his capacity to pay (Toshev
v. Bulgaria, 2006, §§ 69-73). In certain circumstances it may not be unreasonable to take into
account also the amount of the loss imputed to him (Mangouras v. Spain [GC], 2010, §§ 81 and 92).
236. The fact that a detainee remains in custody after being granted bail suggests that the domestic
courts have not taken the necessary care in fixing appropriate bail (Gafà v. Malta, 2018, § 73;
Kolakovic v. Malta, 2015, § 72).
237. The authorities are required to conduct the proceedings with “special diligence” also after bail
is formally granted but the individual remains in detention as a result of his inability to pay (Gafà
v. Malta, 2018, § 71; Kolakovic v. Malta, 2015, § 74).
238. Automatic refusal of bail by virtue of the law, devoid of any judicial control, is incompatible
with the guarantees of Article 5 § 3 (Piruzyan v. Armenia, 2012, § 105; S.B.C. v. the United Kingdom,
2001, §§ 23-24). However, where the domestic courts have given properly reasoned detention
orders despite the law limiting their power to grant bail, the Court has found no violation of Article 5
§ 3 (Grubnyk v. Ukraine, 2020, §§ 116-130).

8. Pre-trial detention of minors

239. The pre-trial detention of minors should be used only as a measure of last resort; it should be
as short as possible and, where detention is strictly necessary, minors should be kept apart from
adults (Nart v. Turkey, 2008, § 31; Güveç v. Turkey, 2009, § 109).

D. Right to have lawfulness of detention speedily examined by a

Court (Article 5 § 4)

“4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings
by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if
the detention is not lawful.”
HUDOC keywords
Review of lawfulness of detention (5-4) – Take proceedings (5-4) – Review by a court (5-4) –
Speediness of review (5-4) – Procedural guarantees of review (5-4) – Order release (5-4)
1. Aim of the provision

240. Article 5 § 4 is the habeas corpus provision of the Convention. It provides detained persons
with the right to actively seek a judicial review of their detention (Mooren v. Germany [GC], 2009,
§ 106; Rakevich v. Russia, 2003, § 43).
Article 5 § 4 also secures to persons arrested or detained the right to have the lawfulness of their
detention decided “speedily” by a court and to have their release ordered if the detention is not
lawful (Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], 2018, § 251; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 131).
241. The fact that the Court has found no breach of the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the
Convention does not mean that it is dispensed from carrying out a review of compliance with Article
5 § 4. The two paragraphs are separate provisions and observance of the former does not
necessarily entail observance of the latter (Douiyeb v. the Netherlands [GC], 1999, § 57; Kolompar
v. Belgium, 1992, § 45).
242. In cases where detainees had not been informed of the reasons for their deprivation of liberty,
the Court has found that their right to appeal against their detention was deprived of all effective
substance (Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 132).
2. Applicability of the provision

243. While Article 5 § 4 normally contemplates situations in which an individual takes proceedings
while in detention, the provision could also apply where the individual is no longer in detention
during appeal proceedings the outcome of which is crucial in determining the lawfulness of the
individual’s detention (Oravec v. Croatia, 2017, § 65).
While the guarantee of speediness is no longer relevant for the purpose of Article 5 § 4 after the
person’s release, the guarantee of effectiveness of the review continues to apply even thereafter
since a former detainee may well have a legitimate interest in the determination of the lawfulness of
his or her detention even after having been released (Kováčik v. Slovakia, 2011, § 77; Osmanović
v. Croatia, 2012, § 49). In particular, a decision on the issue of lawfulness may affect the
“enforceable right to compensation” under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (S.T.S. v. the Netherlands,
2011, § 61).
244. No issue arises under Article 5 § 4 where the impugned detention is of a short detention and
the detainee is released speedily before any judicial review of the lawfulness of his or her detention
could take place (Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], 2003, §§ 159-159, concerning detention periods up to thirty
hours; Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), 2017, § 65, concerning detention of several hours).

However, where there is no judicial remedy at all available to individuals to challenge the lawfulness
of their detention, examination of a complaint under Article 5 § 4 has been considered warranted,
regardless of the length of the detention (Moustahi v. France, 2020, §§ 103-104, where the Court
found a breach of that provision in relation to the administrative detention of unaccompanied
minors lasting several hours).
Article 5 § 4 has also been found to apply to short periods of detention where the scope of the
available judicial review was unduly limited (see Petkov and Profirov v. Bulgaria, 2014, §§ 67-70,
concerning the applicants’ detention of twenty-four hours; A.M. v. France, 2016, §§ 36-42, where
the provision was applied to a period of three and a half days of administrative detention pending
expulsion).
245. Where a person is deprived of his liberty pursuant to a conviction by a competent court, the
supervision required by Article 5 § 4 is incorporated in the decision by the court at the close of
judicial proceedings (De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 1971, § 76) and no further review is
therefore required. However, in cases where the grounds justifying the person’s deprivation of
liberty are susceptible to change with the passage of time, the possibility of recourse to a body
satisfying the requirements of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention is required (Kafkaris v. Cyprus (dec.),
2011, § 58).
246. Article 5 § 4 also comes back into play when, following a conviction, new issues affecting the
lawfulness of a detention arise (see Etute v. Luxembourg, 2018, § 25 and 33 concerning a decision
revoking a prisoner’s release on licence; Ivan Todorov v. Bulgaria, 2017, §§ 59-61, concerning the
question whether the sentence for a criminal offence imposed some twenty years earlier had
become time-barred).
247. Where the Contracting States provide for procedures which go beyond the requirements of
Article 5 § 4 of the Convention, the provision’s guarantees have to be respected also in these
procedures. Article 5 § 4 has thus been found to be applicable in the post-conviction period because
domestic law provided that a person is detained on remand until his or her conviction becomes final,
including during appeal proceedings, and accorded the same procedural rights to all remand
prisoners (Stollenwerk v. Germany, 2017, § 36).
248. Although Article 5 § 4 does not compel the Contracting States to set up a second level of
jurisdiction for the examination of the lawfulness of detention, a State which institutes such a
system must in principle accord to the detainees the same guarantees on appeal as at first instance
(Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], 2018, § 254; Kučera v. Slovakia, 2007, § 107; Navarra v. France, 1993,
§ 28; Toth v. Austria, 1991, § 84).
249. Article 5 § 4 can also be applicable to proceedings before constitutional courts (Ilnseher
v. Germany [GC], 2018, § 254; Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, 2018, § 159).
3. The nature of the review required

250. Article 5 § 4 entitles an arrested or detained person to bring proceedings for review by a court
of the procedural and substantive conditions which are essential for the “lawfulness”, in the sense of
Article 5 § 1, of his or her deprivation of liberty (Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 128; Idalov
v. Russia [GC], 2012, § 161; Reinprecht v. Austria, 2005, § 31).
The notion of “lawfulness” under Article 5 § 4 has the same meaning as in Article 5 § 1, so that the
arrested or detained person is entitled to a review of the “lawfulness” of his detention in the light
not only of the requirements of domestic law but also of the Convention, the general principles
embodied therein and the aim of the restrictions permitted by Article 5 § 1 (Khlaifia and Others
v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 128; Suso Musa v. Malta, 2013, § 50; see also A.M. v. France, 2016, § 40-41,
concerning the required scope of judicial review under Article 5 § 1 (f)).

251. The “court” to which the detained person has access for the purposes of Article 5 § 4 does not
have to be a court of law of the classical kind integrated within the standard judicial machinery of
the country (Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 1987, § 61). It must however be a body of “judicial
character” offering certain procedural guarantees. Thus the “court” must be independent both of
the executive and of the parties to the case (Stephens v. Malta (no. 1), 2009, § 95; Ali Osman Özmen
v. Turkey, 2016, § 87, Baş v. Turkey, 2020, §§ 266-267, where the Court confirmed that the term
“court” referred to in Article 5 § 4 must be construed as a body which enjoys the same qualities of
independence and impartiality as are required of the “tribunal” mentioned in Article 6).
252. The forms of judicial review satisfying the requirements of Article 5 § 4 may vary from one
domain to another, and will depend on the type of deprivation of liberty in issue (Khlaifia and Others
v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 129; M.H. v. the United Kingdom, 2013, § 75).
253. It is not excluded that a system of automatic periodic review of the lawfulness of detention by
a court may ensure compliance with the requirements of Article 5 § 4. However, where automatic
review has been instituted, the decisions on the lawfulness of detention must follow at “reasonable
intervals” (Abdulkhanov v. Russia, 2012, §§ 209 and 212-14, for a summary of the case-law in the
context of detention under sub-paragraphs (a), (c), (e) and (f) of Article 5 § 1).
A breach of time-limits for automatic reviews established in law does not necessarily amount to a
violation of Article 5 § 4, if the lawfulness of an applicant’s detention was nonetheless examined
speedily by a court (Aboya Boa Jean v. Malta, 2019, § 80).
254. Where no automatic review of the lawfulness of detention is provided for in domestic law, a
ban on submitting fresh requests for release for a period of time might be justified in cases of
manifest abuse of detainees’ procedural rights. However, it is incumbent on the authorities to
demonstrate the necessity of such a measure by relevant and sufficient reasons in order to obviate
any suspicion of arbitrariness (Dimo Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, 2020, §§ 84-90, where the Court
found that a two-month ban on submitting further requests for release was unjustified and contrary
to the applicant’s right to obtain a review of his detention at regular short intervals).
255. By virtue of Article 5 § 4, a detainee is entitled to apply to a “court” having jurisdiction to
decide “speedily” whether or not his deprivation of liberty has become “unlawful” in the light of new
factors which have emerged subsequently to the initial decision depriving a person of his liberty
(Abdulkhanov v. Russia, 2012, § 208; Azimov v. Russia, 2013, §§ 151-52).
256. If a person is detained under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention, the “court” must be
empowered to examine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to give rise to a reasonable
suspicion that he or she has committed an offence, because the existence of such a suspicion is
essential if detention on remand is to be “lawful” under the Convention (Dimo Dimov and Others
v. Bulgaria, 2020, § 70; Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], 1999, § 58).
257. A person of unsound mind who is compulsorily confined in a psychiatric institution for a
lengthy period is entitled to take proceedings “at reasonable intervals” to put in issue the lawfulness
of his detention (M.H. v. the United Kingdom, 2013, § 77, for a summary of the applicable principles).
A system of periodic review in which the initiative lies solely with the authorities is not sufficient on
its own (X. v. Finland, 2012, § 170; Raudevs v. Latvia, 2013, § 82).
258. The criteria for “lawful detention” under Article 5 § 1 (e) entail that the review of lawfulness
guaranteed by Article 5 § 4 in relation to the continuing detention of a mental health patient should
be made by reference to the patient’s contemporaneous state of health, including his or her
dangerousness, as evidenced by up-to-date medical assessments, and not by reference to past
events at the origin of the initial decision to detain (Juncal v. the United Kingdom (dec.), 2013, § 30;
Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland, 2014, § 60; H.W. v. Germany, 2013, § 107).

259. A requirement to complete a probationary period as a condition for discharge from compulsory
confinement could in principle thwart the right, enshrined in Article 5 § 4, to obtain a judicial
decision ordering the termination of detention if it proves unlawful (Denis and Irvine v. Belgium [GC],
2021, § 194).
260. The bringing of proceedings to challenge the lawfulness under Article 5 § 1 (f) of administrative
detention pending deportations does not need to have a suspensive effect on the implementation of
the deportation order. Such a requirement would, paradoxically, lead to prolonging the very
situation which the detainee was seeking to end by challenging the administrative detention (A.M.
v. France, 2016, § 38).
261. Article 5 § 4 does not impose an obligation on a court examining an appeal against detention to
address every argument contained in the appellant’s submissions. However, the court cannot treat
as irrelevant, or disregard, concrete facts invoked by the detainee and capable of putting into doubt
the existence of the conditions essential for the “lawfulness”, in the sense of the Convention, of the
deprivation of liberty (Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, 2001, § 94).
If the court fails to give adequate reasons, or gives repeated stereotyped decisions which provide no
answer to the arguments of the applicant, this may disclose a violation by depriving the guarantee
under Article 5 § 4 of its substance (G.B. and Others v. Turkey, 2019, § 176).
262. The “court” must have the power to order release if it finds that the detention is unlawful; a
mere power of recommendation is insufficient (Benjamin and Wilson v. the United Kingdom, 2022,
§§ 33-34; Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 128).
263. Article 5 § 4 proceedings need not necessarily result in freedom, but may also lead to another
form of detention. Where an individual’s detention is covered by both sub-paragraphs (a) and (e) of
Article 5 § 1, it would be contrary to the object and purpose of Article 5 to interpret paragraph 4 of
that provision as making confinement in a mental institution immune from review of its lawfulness
merely because the initial decision ordering detention was taken by a court under Article 5 § 1(a).
The reason for guaranteeing a review under Article 5 § 4 is equally important to persons detained in
a mental institution regardless of whether or not they were serving, in parallel, a prison sentence
(Kuttner v. Austria, 2015, § 31, where the applicant’s request to lift the measure of detention in a
mental institution could lead only to his transfer to an ordinary prison).
4. Procedural guarantees
264. The requirement of procedural fairness under Article 5 § 4 does not impose a uniform,
unvarying standard to be applied irrespective of the context, facts and circumstances. Although it is
not always necessary that an Article 5 § 4 procedure be attended by the same guarantees as those
required under Article 6 for criminal or civil litigation, it must have a judicial character and provide
guarantees appropriate to the type of deprivation of liberty in question (A. and Others v. the United
Kingdom [GC], 2009, § 203; Idalov v. Russia [GC], 2012, § 161).
265. In the case of a person whose detention falls within the ambit of Article 5 § 1 (c), a hearing is
required (Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], 1999, § 58). The opportunity for a detainee to be heard either in
person or through some form of representation features among the fundamental guarantees of
procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty (Kampanis v. Greece, 1995, § 47).
However, Article 5 § 4 does not require that a detained person be heard every time he lodges an
appeal against a decision extending his detention, but that it should be possible to exercise the right
to be heard at reasonable intervals (Çatal v. Turkey, 2012, § 33; Altınok v. Turkey, 2011, § 45).
266. An oral hearing is also required in the context of an adversarial procedure involving legal
representation and the possibility of calling and questioning witnesses, where the judicial authorities
are called upon to examine the personality and the level of maturity of the detainee in order to

decide on his dangerousness. However, a hearing is not essential in all circumstances, particularly
where it was unlikely to result in any additional clarification (Derungs v. Switzerland, 2016, §§ 72 and
75, where a person held in preventive detention on psychiatric grounds had not provided any
relevant information or evidence concerning his personality since a previous hearing that was such
as to make a new hearing necessary).
267. That an applicant could not be heard, in person or by tele-or videoconference, on the
lawfulness of his immigration detention due to initial infrastructure problems related to the Covid-19
pandemic has been found to be compatible with Article 5 § 4, having regard to the general interest
of public health and the fact that the applicant had been represented and heard through his lawyer
(Bah v. the Netherlands (dec.), 2021, §§ 40-45).
268. Article 5 § 4 does not as a general rule require a hearing to be public. However, the Court has
not excluded the possibility that a public hearing could be required in particular circumstances (D.C.
v. Belgium, 2021, §§ 125-126).
269. The proceedings must be adversarial and must always ensure “equality of arms” between the
parties (Reinprecht v. Austria, 2005, § 31; A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2009, § 204). In
remand cases, since the persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the accused person has
committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention, the
detainee must be given an opportunity effectively to challenge the basis of the allegations against
him. This may require the court to hear witnesses whose testimony appears to have a bearing on the
continuing lawfulness of the detention (Ţurcan v. Moldova, 2007, §§ 67-70).
Equality of arms is not ensured if the applicant, or his counsel, is denied access to those documents
in the investigation file which are essential in order effectively to challenge the lawfulness of his
detention (Ragıp Zarakolu v. Turkey, 2020, §§ 59-61; Ovsjannikov v. Estonia, 2014, § 72; Fodale
v. Italy, 2006, § 41; and Korneykova v. Ukraine, 2012, § 68). Even if the detainee has not been
allowed unlimited access to the investigation file, Article 5 § 4 has been found to have been
complied with when the detainee had sufficient knowledge of the content of those items of
evidence that formed the basis for his pre-trial detention and thus had an opportunity to effectively
challenge his detention (Atilla Taş v. Turkey, 2021, §§ 151-154, with further references).
It may also be essential that the individual concerned should not only have the opportunity to be
heard in person but that he should also have the effective assistance of his lawyer (Cernák
v. Slovakia, 2013, § 78).
270. Since detention proceedings require special expedition, a judge may decide not to wait until a
detainee avails himself of legal assistance, and the authorities are not obliged to provide him with
free legal aid in the context of detention proceedings (Karachentsev v. Russia, 2018, § 52).
271. The principle of adversarial proceedings and equality of arms must equally be respected in the
proceedings before the appeal court (Çatal v. Turkey, 2012, §§ 33-34 and the cases referred to
therein) as well as in the proceedings which the Contracting States, as a matter of choice, make
available to post-conviction detainees (Stollenwerk v. Germany, 2017, § 44).
272. The right to adversarial proceedings means that the parties, in principle, have the right to be
informed of and to discuss any document or observation presented to the court for the purpose of
influencing its decision, even if it comes from an independent legal officer (Venet v. Belgium, 2019,
§§ 42-43, where the applicant was unable to reply to the oral submissions of the advocate-general at
the Belgian Court of Cassation).
273. The right to adversarial proceedings necessarily entitles the detainee and his lawyer to be
informed within a reasonable time about the scheduling of a hearing, without which the right would
be devoid of substance (ibid., § 45).

274. Terrorism falls into a special category. Article 5 § 4 does not preclude the use of a closed
hearing wherein confidential sources of information supporting the authorities’ line of investigation
are submitted to a court in the absence of the detainee or his lawyer. What is important is that the
authorities disclose adequate information to enable a detainee to know the nature of the allegations
against him and to have the opportunity to refute them, and to participate effectively in proceedings
concerning his continued detention (Sher and Others v. the United Kingdom, 2015, § 149, where the
Court accepted that the threat of an imminent terrorist attack justified restrictions on the
adversarial nature of the proceedings concerning the warrants for further detention, for reasons of
national security. See also Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2), 2019, §§ 120-122, where the
applicant had been given a reasonable opportunity to present his case, despite restrictions on his
access to evidence related to national security).
5. The “speediness” requirement

275. Article 5 § 4, in guaranteeing to detained persons a right to institute proceedings to challenge
the lawfulness of their detention, also proclaims their right, following the institution of such
proceedings, to a speedy judicial decision concerning the lawfulness of detention and the ordering of
its termination if it proves unlawful (Idalov v. Russia [GC], 2012, § 154; Baranowski v. Poland, 2007,
§ 68). The question whether the right to a speedy decision has been respected must be determined
in the light of the circumstances of each case (Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], 2018, § 252; Rehbock
v. Slovenia, 2000, § 84).
276. The opportunity for legal review must be provided soon after the person is taken into
detention and thereafter at reasonable intervals if necessary (Molotchko v. Ukraine, 2012, § 148).
277. The notion of “speedily” (à bref délai) indicates a lesser urgency than that of “promptly”
(aussitôt) in Article 5 § 3 (E. v. Norway, 1990, § 64; Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 1988,
§ 59).
However, where a decision to detain a person has been taken by a non-judicial authority rather than
a court, the standard of “speediness” of judicial review under Article 5 § 4 comes closer to the
standard of “promptness” under Article 5 § 3 (Shcherbina v. Russia, 2014, §§ 65-70, where a delay of
sixteen days in the judicial review of the applicant’s detention order issued by the prosecutor was
found to be excessive).
278. The standard of “speediness” is less stringent when it comes to proceedings before a court of
appeal (Abdulkhanov v. Russia, 2012, § 198). Where the original detention order was imposed by a
court in a procedure offering appropriate guarantees of due process, the Court is prepared to
tolerate longer periods of review in the proceedings before the second instance court (Ilnseher
v. Germany [GC], 2018, § 255; Shcherbina v. Russia, 2014, § 65). These considerations apply even
more so to complaints concerning proceedings before the constitutional courts which are separate
from proceedings before ordinary courts (Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, 2018, § 163; Ilnseher
v. Germany [GC], 2018, § 274). Proceedings before the higher courts are less concerned with
arbitrariness, but provide additional guarantees based primarily on an evaluation of the
appropriateness of continued detention (Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, 2018, § 165). Nevertheless,
the constitutional courts are similarly bound by the requirement of speediness under Article 5 § 4
(G.B. and Others v. Turkey, 2019, § 184; Kavala v. Turkey, 2019, § 184).
279. In principle, however, since the liberty of the individual is at stake, the State must ensure that
the proceedings are conducted as quickly as possible (Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 131).
a. The period to be taken into consideration

280. The Court has taken as a starting point the moment that the application for release was
made/proceedings were instituted. The relevant period comes to an end with the final

determination of the legality of the applicant’s detention, including any appeal (Sanchez-Reisse
v. Switzerland, 1986, § 54; E. v. Norway, 1990, § 64).
281. If an administrative remedy has to be exhausted before recourse can be had to a court, time
begins to run when the administrative authority is seised of the matter (Sanchez-Reisse
v. Switzerland, 1986, § 54).
282. If the proceedings have been conducted over two levels of jurisdiction, an overall assessment
must be made in order to determine whether the requirement of “speedily” has been complied with
(Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, 2003, § 78; Navarra v. France, 1993, § 28).
b. Relevant factors to be taken into consideration when assessing speediness

283. The term “speedily” cannot be defined in the abstract. As with the “reasonable time”
stipulations in Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 it must be determined in the light of the circumstances
of the individual case (R.M.D. v. Switzerland, 1997, § 42).
284. In making such an assessment, the circumstances to be taken into account include the
complexity of the proceedings, their conduct by the domestic authorities and by the applicant, what
was at stake for the latter (Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], 2018, § 252; Mooren v. Germany [GC], 2009,
§ 106; Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, 2018, § 162) and any specificities of the domestic procedure
(Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], 2016, § 131; Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, 2018, § 163, and
Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], 2018, §§ 270-271 concerning proceedings before constitutional courts).
285. Where one year per instance may be a rough rule of thumb in Article 6 § 1 cases, Article 5 § 4,
concerning issues of liberty, requires particular expedition (Panchenko v. Russia, 2005, § 117).
Where an individual’s personal liberty is at stake, the Court has very strict standards concerning the
State’s compliance with the requirement of speedy review of the lawfulness of detention (see, for
example, Kadem v. Malta, 2003, §§ 44-45, where the Court considered a time-period of seventeen
days in deciding on the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention to be excessive, and Mamedova
v. Russia, 2006, § 96, where the length of appeal proceedings lasting, inter alia, twenty-six days, was
found to be in breach of the “speediness” requirement).
It is incumbent on the respondent State to put in place the most appropriate internal procedures to
comply with its obligations under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (Dimo Dimov and Others
v. Bulgaria, 2020, § 80, where the transfer of the investigation file to the competent court in another
city resulted in a delay of twenty-five days in examining the applicant’s request for release).
286. Where the national authorities decide in exceptional circumstances to detain a child and his or
her parents in the context of immigration controls, the lawfulness of such detention should be
examined by the national courts with particular expedition and diligence at all levels (G.B. and
Others v. Turkey, 2019, §§ 167 and 186).
287. Where the determination involves complex issues – such as the detained person’s medical
condition – this may be taken into account when considering how long is “reasonable” under Article
5 § 4. However, even in complex cases, there are factors which require the authorities to carry out a
particularly speedy review, including the presumption of innocence in the case of pre-trial detention
(Frasik v. Poland, 2010, § 63; Jablonski v. Poland, 2000, §§ 91-93; Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], 2018,
§ 253).
288. In exceptional situations, the complexity of the case may justify the length of periods which in
an ordinary context cannot be considered as “speedy” (Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, 2018, § 165-
167, and Şahin Alpay v. Turkey, 2018, §§ 137-139, where the Court found no violation of Article 5 § 4
in respect of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court lasting for periods between fourteen
and sixteen months, concerning new and complicated issues under the state of emergency; see also
Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], 2018, §§ 265-275, where a period of eight months and twenty-three days

of proceedings before the Federal Constitutional Court was found to comply with the speediness
requirement, having regard in particular to the complexity of the issues raised by a new system of
preventive detention).
289. Detention on remand in criminal cases calls for short intervals between reviews (Bezicheri
v. Italy, 1989, § 21).
290. If the length of time before a decision is taken is prima facie incompatible with the notion of
speediness, the Court will look to the State to explain the reason for the delay or to put forward
exceptional grounds to justify the lapse of time in question (Musiał v. Poland [GC], 1999, § 44;
Koendjbiharie v. the Netherlands, 1990, § 29).
291. Neither an excessive workload nor a vacation period can justify a period of inactivity on the
part of the judicial authorities (E. v. Norway, 1990, § 66; Bezicheri v. Italy, 1989, § 25).
E. Right to compensation for unlawful detention (Article 5 § 5)

“5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this
Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”
HUDOC keywords
Compensation (5-5)
1. Applicability
292. The right to compensation set forth in paragraph 5 presupposes that a violation of one of the
other paragraphs has been established, either by a domestic authority or by the Court (N.C. v. Italy
[GC], 2002, § 49; Pantea v. Romania, 2003, § 262; Vachev v. Bulgaria, 2004, § 78).
293. In the absence of a finding by a domestic authority of a breach of any of the other provisions of
Article 5, either directly or in substance, the Court itself must first establish the existence of such a
breach for Article 5 § 5 to apply (see, for example, Danija v. Switzerland (dec.), 2020, § 37;
Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, 2011, §§ 227 and 229; Yankov v. Bulgaria, 2003, §§ 190-93).
294. The applicability of Article 5 § 5 is not dependent on a domestic finding of unlawfulness or
proof that but for the breach the person would have been released (Blackstock v. the United
Kingdom, 2005, § 51; Waite v. the United Kingdom, 2002, § 73). The arrest or detention may be
lawful under domestic law, but still in breach of Article 5, which makes Article 5 § 5 applicable
(Harkmann v. Estonia, 2006, § 50).
295. Where domestic law provides for a right of compensation for acquitted persons who have been
deprived of their liberty, such an automatic entitlement does not necessarily imply that the
detention in question is to be considered as contrary to the provisions of Article 5. However,
Article 5 § 5 applies if the detention is characterised by the national courts as “unlawful” within the
meaning of domestic law (Norik Poghosyan v. Armenia, 2020, §§ 34-36).
2. Judicial remedy
296. Article 5 § 5 creates a direct and enforceable right to compensation before the national courts
(A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], 2009, § 229; Storck v. Germany, 2005, § 122).

3. Availability of compensation
297. Article 5 § 5 is complied with where it is possible to apply for compensation in respect of a
deprivation of liberty effected in conditions contrary to paragraphs 1, 2, 3 or 4 (Michalák v. Slovakia,
2011, § 204; Lobanov v. Russia, 2008, § 54).
298. An enforceable right to compensation must be available either before or after the Court’s
judgment (Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], 2012, §§ 183-84; Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 1988,
§ 67).
299. The effective enjoyment of the right to compensation must be ensured with a sufficient degree
of certainty (Ciulla v. Italy, 1989, § 44; Sakık and Others v. Turkey, § 60). Compensation must be
available both in theory (Dubovik v. Ukraine, 2009, § 74) and practice (Chitayev and Chitayev
v. Russia, 2007, § 195).
300. In considering compensation claims, the domestic authorities are required to interpret and
apply domestic law in the spirit of Article 5, without excessive formalism (Fernandes Pedroso
v. Portugal, 2018, § 137; Shulgin v. Ukraine, 2011, § 65; Houtman and Meeus v. Belgium, 2009, § 46).
4. Nature of compensation
301. The right to compensation relates primarily to financial compensation. It does not confer a
right to secure the detained person’s release, which is covered by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention
(Bozano v. France, Commission decision of 15 May 1984).
302. Crediting a period of pre-trial detention towards a penalty does not amount to compensation
required by Article 5 § 5, because of its non-financial character (Włoch v. Poland (no. 2), 2011, § 32).
However, a reduction of sentence could constitute compensation within the meaning of Article 5 § 5
if it was explicitly granted to afford redress for the violation in question and it had a measurable and
proportionate impact on the sentence served by the person concerned (Porchet v. Switzerland
(dec.), 2019, §§ 18-25).
303. Article 5 § 5 comprises a right to compensation not only in respect of pecuniary damage but
also for any distress, anxiety and frustration that a person may suffer as a result of a violation of
others provisions of Article 5 (Sahakyan v. Armenia, 2015, § 29; Teymurazyan v. Armenia, 2018, § 76,
concerning the unavailability of compensation for damage of a non-pecuniary nature under
Armenian law).
5. Existence of damage
304. Article 5 § 5 does not prohibit the Contracting States from making the award of compensation
dependent upon the ability of the person concerned to show damage resulting from the breach.
There can be no question of “compensation” where there is no pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage
to compensate (Wassink v. the Netherlands, 1990, § 38).
305. However, excessive formalism in requiring proof of non-pecuniary damage resulting from
unlawful detention is not compliant with the right to compensation (Danev v. Bulgaria, 2010, §§ 34-
35).
6. Amount of compensation
306. Article 5 § 5 of the Convention does not entitle the applicant to a particular amount of
compensation (Damian-Burueana and Damian v. Romania, 2009, § 89; Şahin Çağdaş v. Turkey, 2006,
§ 34).

307. In determining the existence of a violation of Article 5 § 5, the Court has regard to its own
practice under Article 41 of the Convention in similar cases as well as to the factual elements of the
case, such as the duration of the applicant’s detention (Vasilevskiy and Bogdanov v. Russia, 2018,
§ 23).
308. The mere fact that the amount awarded by the national authorities is lower than the award the
Court would have made in similar cases does not per se entail a violation of Article 5 § 5 (Mehmet
Hasan Altan v. Turkey, 2018, § 176).
309. However, compensation which is negligible or wholly disproportionate to the seriousness of
the violation would not comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 5 as this would render the right
guaranteed by that provision theoretical and illusory (Vasilevskiy and Bogdanov v. Russia, 2018, § 22
and 26; Cumber v. the United Kingdom, Commission decision of 27 November 1996; Attard v. Malta
(dec.), 2000).
310. An award cannot be considerably lower than that awarded by the Court in similar cases (Ganea
v. Moldova, 2011, § 30; Cristina Boicenco v. Moldova, 2011, § 43).
311. There may be differences in approach between assessing the loss of victim status under Article
5 § 1 on account of the quantum of compensation awarded at national level, on the one hand, and
the matter of a right to compensation in terms of Article 5 § 5, on the other (see Tsvetkova and
Others v. Russia, 2018, §§ 157-158, where the domestic award, which was not comparable to what
could be awarded by the Court, did not deprive the applicant of his victim status, but it was not so
low as to undermine the right to compensation under Article 5 § 5; see also Vedat Doğru v. Turkey,
2016, §§ 40-42 and 63-64, where the sum awarded by the domestic courts was regarded as
manifestly insufficient for the applicant to lose his victim status, but no issue was found to arise
under Article 5 § 5).

List of cited cases
The case-law cited in this Guide refers to judgments or decisions delivered by the Court and to
decisions or reports of the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”).
Unless otherwise indicated, all references are to a judgment on the merits delivered by a Chamber
of the Court. The abbreviation “(dec.)” indicates that the citation is of a decision of the Court and
“[GC]” that the case was heard by the Grand Chamber.
Chamber judgments that were not final within the meaning of Article 44 of the Convention when
this update was published are marked with an asterisk (*) in the list below. Article 44 § 2 of the
Convention provides: “The judgment of a Chamber shall become final (a) when the parties declare
that they will not request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber; or (b) three months after
the date of the judgment, if reference of the case to the Grand Chamber has not been requested; or
(c) when the panel of the Grand Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article 43”. In cases
where a request for referral is accepted by the Grand Chamber panel, the Chamber judgment does
not become final and thus has no legal effect; it is the subsequent Grand Chamber judgment that
becomes final.
The hyperlinks to the cases cited in the electronic version of the Guide are directed to the HUDOC
database (http://hudoc.echr.coe.int) which provides access to the case-law of the Court (Grand
Chamber, Chamber and Committee judgments and decisions, communicated cases, advisory
opinions and legal summaries from the Case-Law Information Note) and of the Commission
(decisions and reports), and to the resolutions of the Committee of Ministers.
The Court delivers its judgments and decisions in English and/or French, its two official languages.
HUDOC also contains translations of many important cases into more than thirty non-official
languages, and links to around one hundred online case-law collections produced by third parties. All
the language versions available for cited cases are accessible via the “Language versions” tab in the
HUDOC database, a tab which can be found after you click on the case hyperlink.
—A—
A. and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 51776/08, 29 November 2011
A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, ECHR 2009
A.B. and Others v. France, no. 11593/12, 12 July 2016
Abdulkhanov v. Russia, no. 14743/11, 2 October 2012
Aboya Boa Jean v. Malta, no. 62676/16, 2 April 2019
Adamov v. Switzerland, no. 3052/06, 21 June 2011
Aftanache v. Romania, no. 999/19, 26 May 2020
Airey v. Ireland, no. 6289/73, Commission decision of 7 July 1977, Decisions and Reports (DR) 8
Akgün v. Turkey, no. 19699/18, 20 July 2021
Aleksandr Aleksandrov v. Russia, no. 14431/06, 27 March 2018
Aleksandr Makarov v. Russia, no. 15217/07, 12 March 2009
Aleksanyan v. Russia, no. 46468/06, 22 December 2008
Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2), no. 10112/16, 25 June 2019
Ali Osman Özmen v. Turkey, no. 42969/04, 5 July 2016
Al Nashiri v. Poland, no. 28761/11, 24 July 2014

Alparslan Altan v. Turkey, no. 12778/17, 16 April 2019

Altınok v. Turkey, no. 31610/08, 29 November 2011
A.M. v. France, no. 56324/13, 12 July 2016
Ambruszkiewicz v. Poland, no. 38797/03, 4 May 2006
Amie and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 58149/08, 12 February 2013
Amuur v. France, 25 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III
Anguelova v. Bulgaria, no. 38361/97, ECHR 2002-IV
Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999-III
Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93
Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, ECHR 2004-II
Assenov and Others v. Bulgaria, 28 October 1998, Reports 1998-VIII
Attard v. Malta (dec.), no. 46750/99, 28 September 2000
Atilla Taş v. Turkey, no. 72/17, 19 January 2021
Austin and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39692/09, 40713/09 and 41008/09, 15 March
2012
Azimov v. Russia, no. 67474/11, 18 April 2013
—B—
B. v. Austria, 28 March 1990, Series A no. 175
Bah v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35751/20, 22 June 2021
Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, ECHR 2000-III
Baş v. Turkey, no. 66448/17, 3 March 2020
Becciev v. Moldova, no. 9190/03, 4 October 2005
Beiere v. Latvia, no. 30954/05, 29 November 2011
Bejaoui v. Greece, no. 23916/94, Commission decision of 6 April 1995
Belchev v. Bulgaria, no. 39270/98, 8 April 2004
Belevitskiy v. Russia, no. 72967/01, 1 March 2007
Belozorov v. Russia and Ukraine, no. 43611/02, 15 October 2015
Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, Reports 1996-III
Benjamin and Wilson v. the United Kingdom, no. 28212/95, 26 September 2002
Bergmann v. Estonia, no. 38241/04, 29 May 2008
Bezicheri v. Italy, 25 October 1989, Series A no. 164
Blackstock v. the United Kingdom, no. 59512/00, 21 June 2005
Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no. 47152/06, ECHR 2016
Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 41088/05, 11 July 2006
Bojilov v. Bulgaria, no. 45114/98, 22 December 2004
Bollan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42117/98, ECHR 2000-V
Bordovskiy v. Russia, no. 49491/99, 8 February 2005
Bouamar v. Belgium, 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129
Bozano v. France, no. 9990/82, Commission decision of 15 May 1984, DR 39
Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, Series A no. 111
Brand v. the Netherlands, no. 49902/99, 11 May 2004
Brega and Others v. Moldova, no. 61485/08, 24 January 2012
Brincat v. Italy, 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A
Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B
Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, ECHR 2016 (extracts)
Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, 10 March 2009

—C—
Calmanovici v. Romania, no. 42250/02, 1 July 2008
Castravet v. Moldova, no. 23393/05, 13 March 2007
Çatal v. Turkey, no. 26808/08, 17 April 2012
Cazan v. Romania, no. 30050/12, 5 April 2016
Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V
Chitayev and Chitayev v. Russia, no. 59334/00, 18 January 2007
Chraidi v. Germany, no. 65655/01, ECHR 2006-XII
Cernák v. Slovakia, no. 36997/08, 17 December 2013
Ciulla v. Italy, 22 February 1989, Series A no. 148
Clooth v. Belgium, 12 December 1991, Series A no. 225
Constancia v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 73560/12, 3 March 2015
Čonka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, ECHR 2002-I
Creangă v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, 23 February 2012
Cristina Boicenco v. Moldova, no. 25688/09, 27 September 2011
Cumber v. the United Kingdom, no. 28779/95, Commission decision of 27 November 1996
—D—
D.C. v. Belgium, no. 82087/17, 30 March 2021
D.D. v. Lithuania, no. 13469/06, 14 February 2012
D.G. v. Ireland, no. 39474/98, ECHR 2002-III
D.J. v. Germany, no. 45953/10, 7 September 2017
D.K. v. Bulgaria, no. 76336/16, 8 December 2020
D.L. v. Bulgaria, no. 7472/14, 19 May 2016
Dacosta Silva v. Spain, no. 69966/01, ECHR 2006-XIII
Damian-Burueana and Damian v. Romania, no. 6773/02, 26 May 2009
Danev v. Bulgaria, no. 9411/05, 2 September 2010
Danija v. Switzerland (dec.), 1654/15, 28 April 2020
De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands, 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77
Delcourt v. Belgium, no. 2689/65, Commission decision of 7 February 1967 referred to in the
Commission’s report of 1 October 1968
Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no. 42750/09, ECHR 2013
Denis and Irvine v. Belgium [GC], nos. 62819/17 and 63921/17, 1 June 2021
Dereci v. Turkey, no. 77845/01, 24 May 2005
Derungs v. Switzerland, no. 52089/09, 10 May 2016
De Sousa v. Portugal (dec.), no. 28/17, 7 December 2021
De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, ECHR 2017 (extracts)
De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12
Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, ECHR 2000-VIII
Dimo Dimov and Others v. Bulgaria, no. 30044/10, 7 July 2020
Douiyeb v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 31464/96, 4 August 1999
Drozd and Janousek v. France and Spain, 26 June 1992, Series A no. 240
Dubovik v. Ukraine, nos. 33210/07 and 41866/08, 15 October 2009
—E—
E. v. Norway, 29 August 1990, Series A no. 181-A
El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, ECHR 2012

Elçi and Others v. Turkey, nos. 23145/93 and 25091/94, 13 November 2003
Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22
Enhorn v. Sweden, no. 56529/00, ECHR 2005-I
Epple v. Germany, no. 77909/01, 24 March 2005
Erdagöz v. Turkey, no. 21890/93, 22 October 1997, Reports 1997-VI
Erkalo v. the Netherlands, 2 September 1998, Reports 1998-VI
Etute v. Luxembourg, no. 18233/16, 30 January 2018
—F—
Farhad Aliyev v. Azerbaijan, no. 37138/06, 9 November 2010
Fenech v. Malta (dec.), no. 19090/20, 23 March 2021
Fernandes Pedroso v. Portugal, no. 59133/11, 12 June 2018
Fodale v. Italy, no. 70148/01, ECHR 2006-VII
Foka v. Turkey, no. 28940/95, 24 June 2008
Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, 30 August 1990, Series A no. 182
Frasik v. Poland, no. 22933/02, ECHR 2010
Freda v. Italy, no. 8916/80, Commission decision of 7 October 1980, DR 21
—G—
Gafà v. Malta, no. 54335/14, 22 May 2018
Gahramanov v. Azerbaijan (dec.), no. 26291/06, 15 October 2013
Ganea v. Moldova, no. 2474/06, 17 May 2011
G.B. and Others v. Turkey, no. 4633/15, 17 October 2019
G.K. v. Poland, no. 38816/97, 20 January 2004
Gaidjurgis v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 49098/99, 16 June 2001
Gallardo Sanchez v. Italy, no. 11620/07, ECHR 2015
Galstyan v. Armenia, no. 26986/03, 15 November 2007
Garycki v. Poland, no. 14348/02, 6 February 2007
Gasiņš v. Latvia, no. 69458/01, 19 April 2011
Gatt v. Malta, no. 28221/08, ECHR 2010
Gebremedhin [Gaberamadhien] v. France, no. 25389/05, ECHR 2007-II
Georgieva v. Bulgaria, no. 16085/02, 3 July 2008
Gillan and Quinton v. the United Kingdom, no. 4158/05, ECHR 2010 (extracts)
Giorgi Nikolaishvili v. Georgia, no. 37048/04, 13 January 2009
Giulia Manzoni v. Italy, 1 July 1997, Reports 1997-IV
Glien v. Germany, no. 7345/12, 28 November 2013
Górski v. Poland, no. 28904/02, 4 October 2005
Göthlin v. Sweden, no. 8307/11, 16 October 2014
Grubnyk v. Ukraine, no. 58444/15, 17 September 2020
Gutsanovi v. Bulgaria, no. 34529/10, ECHR 2013
Güveç v. Turkey, no. 70337/01, ECHR 2009
Guzzardi v. Italy, 6 November 1980, Series A no. 39
—H—
H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, ECHR 2004-IX
H.M. v. Switzerland, no. 39187/98, ECHR 2002-II

H.W. v. Germany, no. 17167/11, 29 September 2013

Harkmann v. Estonia, no. 2192/03, 11 July 2006
Hassan v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 29750/09, ECHR 2014
Hilda Hafsteinsdóttir v. Iceland, no. 40905/98, 8 June 2004
Hood v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27267/95, ECHR 1999-I
Houtman and Meeus v. Belgium, no. 22945/07, 17 March 2009
Hristova v. Bulgaria, no. 60859/00, 7 December 2006
Huber v. Switzerland, 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188
Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, ECHR 2003-IV
—I—
I.A. v. France, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII
I.I. v. Bulgaria, no. 44082/98, 9 June 2005
I.S. v. Switzerland, no. 60202/15, 6 October 2020
Ibrahimov and Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, nos. 63571/16 and 5 others, 13 February 2020
Ichin and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 28189/04 and 28192/04, 21 December 2010
Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, 22 May 2012
Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no. 47287/15, 21 November 2019
Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004-VII
Ilgar Mammadov v. Azerbaijan, no. 15172/13, 22 May 2014
Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001
Iliya Stefanov v. Bulgaria, no. 65755/01, 22 May 2008
Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, 4 December 2018
İpek and Others v. Turkey, nos. 17019/02 and 30070/02, 3 February 2009
Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25
Iskandarov v. Russia, no. 17185/05, 23 September 2010
Ivan Todorov v. Bulgaria, no. 71545/11, 19 January 2017
—J—
Jablonski v. Poland, no. 33492/96, 21 December 2000
James, Wells and Lee v. the United Kingdom, nos. 25119/09, 57715/09 and 57877/09, 18 September
2012
Jarzyński v. Poland, no. 15479/02, 4 October 2005
Ječius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, ECHR 2000-IX
J.N. v. the United Kingdom, no. 37289/12, 19 May 2016
J.R. and Others v. Greece, no. 22696/16, 25 January 2018
Juncal v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 32357/09, 17 September 2013
—K—
Kadusic v. Switzerland, no. 43977/13, 9 January 2018
Karachentsev v. Russia, no. 23229/11, 17 April 2018
Kavala v. Turkey, no. 28749/18, 10 December 2019
Kerr v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40451/98, 7 December 1999
Kaboulov v. Ukraine, no. 41015/04, 19 November 2009
Kadem v. Malta, no. 55263/00, 9 January 2003
Kafkaris v. Cyprus (no. 2) (dec.), no. 9644/09, 21 June 2011

Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002-VI

Kallweit v. Germany, no. 17792/07, 13 January 2011
Kampanis v. Greece, no. 17977/91, 13 July 1995
Kanagaratnam v. Belgium, no. 15297/09, 13 December 2011
Kandzhov v. Bulgaria, no. 68294/01, 6 November 2008
Kane v. Cyprus (dec.), no. 33655/06, 13 September 2011
Kasparov v. Russia, no. 53659/07, 11 October 2016
Kerem Çiftçi v. Turkey, no. 35205/09, 21 September 2021
Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia [GC], nos. 60367/08 and 961/11, ECHR 2017
Kharin v. Russia, no. 37345/03, 3 February 2011
Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no. 16483/12, ECHR 2016 (extracts)
Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, 31 May 2011
Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, ECHR 2005-X (extracts)
Kim v. Russia, no. 44260/13, 17 July 2014
Klinkenbuß v. Germany, no. 53157/11, 25 February 2016
Koendjbiharie v. the Netherlands, 25 October 1990, Series A no. 185-B
Kolakovic v. Malta, no. 76392/12, 19 March 2015
Kolompar v. Belgium, 24 September 1992, Series A no. 235-C
Komissarov v. the Czech Republic, no. 20611/17, 3 February 2022
Koniarska v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.33670/96, 12 October 2000
Korneykova v. Ukraine, no. 39884/05, 19 January 2012
Kortesis v. Greece, no. 60593/10, 12 June 2012
Kováčik v. Slovakia, no. 50903/06, 29 November 2011
Krejčíř v. the Czech Republic, nos. 39298/04 and 8723/05, 26 March 2009
Krupko and Others v. Russia, no. 26587/07, 26 June 2014
Kučera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, 17 July 2007
Kuttner v. Austria, no. 7997/08, 16 July 2015
Kurt v. Austria [GC], no. 62903/15, 15 June 2021
Kurt v. Turkey, 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III
—L—
L.B. v. Belgium, no. 22831/08, 2 October 2012
Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV
Ladent v. Poland, no. 11036/03, 18 March 2008
Laumont v. France, no. 43626/98, ECHR 2001-XI
Lavents v. Latvia, no. 58442/00, 28 November 2002
Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3), 1 July 1961, Series A no. 3
Lebedev v. Russia, no. 4493/04, 25 October 2007
Lelièvre v. Belgium, no. 11287/03, 8 November 2007
Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207
Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 et al., 1 March 2005
Lobanov v. Russia, no. 16159/03, 16 October 2008
Luberti v. Italy, 23 February 1984, Series A no. 75
—M—
M. v. Germany, no. 19359/04, ECHR 2009
M.A. v. Cyprus, no. 41872/10, ECHR 2013
Magee and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 26289/12 and 2 others, ECHR 2015 (extracts)

Mahamed Jama v. Malta, no. 10290/13, 26 November 2015

Mahdid and Haddar v. Austria (dec.), no. 74762/01, ECHR 2005-XIII
Mamedova v. Russia, no. 7064/05, 1 June 2006
Mancini v. Italy, no. 44955/98, ECHR 2001-IX
Mangouras v. Spain [GC], no. 12050/04, ECHR 2010
Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, 4 March 2008
Matznetter v. Austria, 10 November 1969, Series A no. 10
McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, ECHR 2006-X
McVeigh and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos.8022/77, 8025/77, 8027/77, Commission report of
18 March 1981
Medova v. Russia, no. 25385/04, 15 January 2009
Medvedyev and Others v. France [GC], no. 3394/03, ECHR 2010
Mehmet Hasan Altan v. Turkey, no. 13237/17, 20 March 2018
Meloni v. Switzerland, no. 61697/00, 10 April 2008
M.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 11577/06, 22 October 2013
Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no. 72508/13, ECHR 2017 (extracts)
Michalák v. Slovakia, no. 30157/03, 8 February 2011
Milanković and Bošnjak v. Croatia, nos. 37762/12 and 23530/13, 26 April 2016
Minjat v. Switzerland, no. 38223/97, 28 October 2003
Mogoş and Others v. Romania (dec.), no. 20420/02, 6 May 2004
Moldoveanu v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 53660/15, 14 September 2021
Molotchko v. Ukraine, no. 12275/10, 26 April 2012
Monnell and Morris v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, Series A no. 115
Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, 9 July 2009
Morsink v. the Netherlands, no. 48865/99, 11 May 2004
Moustahi v. France, no. 9347/14, 25 June 2020
M.S. v. Croatia (no. 2), no. 75450/12, 19 February 2015
Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, no. 13178/03, ECHR 2006-XI
Munjaz v. the United Kingdom, no. 2913/06, 17 July 2012
Murray v. the United Kingdom [GC], 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-A
Musiał v. Poland [GC], no. 24557/94, ECHR 1999-II
Muşuc v. Moldova, no. 42440/06, 6 November 2007
Muzamba Oyaw v. Belgium (dec.), no. 23707/15, 28 February 2017
—N—
N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, ECHR 2002-X
Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, ECHR 2012
Nart v. Turkey, no. 20817/04, 6 May 2008
Nasrulloyev v. Russia, no. 656/06, 11 October 2007
Năstase-Silivestru v. Romania, no. 74785/01, 4 October 2007
Navarra v. France, 23 November 1993, Series A no. 273-B
Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine, no. 42310/04, 21 April 2011
Neumeister v. Austria, 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8
Niedbała v. Poland, no. 27915/95, 4 July 2000
Nielsen v. Denmark, 28 November 1988, Series A no. 144
Nikolov v. Bulgaria, no. 38884/97, 30 January 2003
Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, ECHR 1999-II
N. v. Romania, no. 59152/08, 28 November 2017
Nikolova v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 40896/98, 30 September 2004
Norik Poghosyan v. Armenia, no. 63106/12, 22 October 2020

Novotka v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 47244/99, 4 November 2003

Nowak v. Ukraine, no. 60846/10, 31 March 2011
Nowicka v. Poland, no. 30218/96, 3 December 2002
—O—
O.H. v. Germany, no. 4646/08, 24 November 2011
O’Hara v. the United Kingdom, no. 37555/97, ECHR 2001-X
Ostendorf v. Germany, no. 15598/08, 7 March 2013
Osypenko v. Ukraine, no. 4634/04, 9 November 2010
Öcalan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 46221/99, 14 December 2000
Öcalan v. Turkey [GC], no. 46221/99, ECHR 2005-IV
Oral and Atabay v. Turkey, no. 39686/02, 23 June 2009
Oravec v. Croatia, no. 51249/11, 11 July 2017
Osmanović v. Croatia, no. 67604/10, 6 November 2012
Ovsjannikov v. Estonia, no. 1346/12, 20 February 2014
—P—
P. and S. v. Poland, no. 57375/08, 30 October 2012
Paci v. Belgium, no. 45597/09, 17 April 2018
Panchenko v. Russia, no. 45100/98, 8 February 2005
Pankiewicz v. Poland, no. 34151/04, 12 February 2008
Pantea v. Romania, no. 33343/96, ECHR 2003-VI
Paradis v. Germany (dec.), no. 4065/04, 4 September 2007
Petkov and Profirov v. Bulgaria, nos. 50027/08 and 50781/09, 24 June 2014
Petschulies v. Germany, no. 6281/13, 2 June 2016
Petukhova v. Russia, no. 28796/07, 2 May 2013
Piotr Baranowski v. Poland, no. 39742/05, 2 October 2007
Piotr Osuch v. Poland, no. 30028/06, 3 November 2009
Pirozzi v. Belgium, no. 21055/11, 17 April 2018
Piruzyan v. Armenia, no. 33376/07, 26 June 2012
Plesó v. Hungary, no. 41242/08, 2 October 2012
Podeschi v. San Marino, no. 66357/14, 13 April 2017
Porchet v. Switzerland (dec.), no. 36391/16, 7 November 2019
Prencipe v. Monaco, no. 43376/06, 16 July 2009
—Q—
Quinn v. France, 22 March 1995, Series A no. 311
—R—
R.L. and M.-J.D. v. France, no. 44568/98, 19 May 2004
R.M.D. v. Switzerland, 26 September 1997, Reports 1997-VI
R.R. and Others v. Hungary, no. 36037/17, 2 March 2021
Radu v. Germany, no. 20084/07, 16 May 2013
Ragıp Zarakolu v. Turkey, no. 15064/12, 15 September 2020

Rahimi v. Greece, no. 8687/08, 5 April 2011

Rakevich v. Russia, no. 58973/00, 28 October 2003
Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia, no. 25965/04, ECHR 2010
Raudevs v. Latvia, no. 24086/03, 17 December 2013
Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, ECHR 2000-XII
Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, ECHR 2005-XII
Riad and Idiab v. Belgium, nos. 29787/03 and 29810/03, 24 January 2008
Riera Blume and Others v. Spain, no. 37680/97, ECHR 1999-VII
Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, 31 January 2019
Rozhkov v. Russia (no. 2), no. 38898/04, 31 January 2017
Rubtsov and Balayan v. Russia, nos. 33707/14 and 3762/15, 10 April 2018
Ruiz Rivera v. Switzerland, no. 8300/06, 18 February 2014
Ruslan Yakovenko v. Ukraine, no. 5425/11, ECHR 2015
—S—
S.B.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 39360/98, 19 June 2001
S.P. v. Belgium (dec.), no. 12572/08, 14 June 2011
S.R. v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 13837/07, 18 September 2012
S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, 22 October 2018
Saadi v. the United Kingdom, no. 13229/03, 11 July 2006
Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 13229/03, ECHR 2008
Sabuncu and Others v. Turkey, no. 23199/17, 10 November 2020
Sadegül Özdemir v. Turkey, no. 61441/00, 2 August 2005
Sahakyan v. Armenia, no. 66256/11, 10 November 2015
Şahin Alpay v. Turkey, no. 16538/17, 20 March 2018
Şahin Çağdaş v. Turkey, no. 28137/02, 11 April 2006
Sakık and Others v. Turkey, 26 November 1997, Reports 1997-VII
Salayev v. Azerbaijan, no. 40900/05, 9 November 2010
Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107
Sarigiannis v. Italy, no. 14569/05, 5 April 2011
Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34
Schwabe and M.G. v. Germany, no. 8080/08, 1 December 2011
Scott v. Spain, 18 December 1996, Reports 1996-VI
Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, 22 December 2020
Selçuk v. Turkey, no. 21768/02, 10 January 2006
Shabani v. Switzerland, no. 29044/06, 5 November 2009
Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, no. 36378/02, ECHR 2005-III
Shamsa v. Poland, nos. 45355/99 and 45357/99, 27 November 2003
Shcherbina v. Russia, no. 41970/11, 26 June 2014
Sher and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 5201/11, ECHR 2015
Shiksaitov v. Slovakia, nos. 56751/16 and 33762/17, 10 December 2020
Shimovolos v. Russia, no. 30194/09, 21 June 2011
Shmorgunov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 15367/14 and 13 others, 21 January 2021
Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, ECHR 2008
Shulgin v. Ukraine, no. 29912/05, 8 December 2011
Simons v. Belgium (dec.), no. 71407/10, 28 August 2012
Skrobol v. Poland, no. 44165/98, 13 September 2005
Slivenko v. Latvia [GC], no. 48321/99, ECHR 2003-X
Smirnova v. Russia, nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, ECHR 2003-IX
Soldatenko v. Ukraine, no. 2440/07, 23 October 2008

Solmaz v. Turkey, no. 27561/02, 16 January 2007

Stănculeanu v. Romania, no. 26990/15, 9 January 2018
Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, 17 January 2012
Stašaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, 21 March 2002
Staykov v. Bulgaria, no. 16282/20, 8 June 2021
Steel and Others v. the United Kingdom, 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-VII
Stephens v. Malta (no. 1), no. 11956/07, 21 April 2009
Stephens v. Malta (no. 2), no. 33740/06, 21 April 2009
Stepuleac v. Moldova, no. 8207/06, 6 November 2007
Stollenwerk v. Germany, no. 8844/12, 7 September 2017
Stoichkov v. Bulgaria, no. 9808/02, 24 March 2005
Stoyan Krastev v. Bulgaria, no. 1009/12, 6 October 2020
Storck v. Germany, no. 61603/00, ECHR 2005-V
S.T.S. v. the Netherlands, no. 277/05, ECHR 2011
Štvrtecký v. Slovakia, no. 55844/12, 5 June 2018
Sulaoja v. Estonia, no. 55939/00, 15 February 2005
Suso Musa v. Malta, no. 42337/12, 23 July 2013
Svipsta v. Latvia, no. 66820/01, ECHR 2006-III (extracts)
Sy v. Italy (dec.), no. 11791/20, 24 January 2022
—T—
Talat Tepe v. Turkey, no. 31247/96, 21 December 2004
Tarak and Depe v. Turkey, no. 70472/12, 9 April 2019
Tepe v. Turkey, no. 31247/96, 21 December 2004
Tase v. Romania, no. 29761/02, 10 June 2008
Thimothawes v. Belgium, no. 39061/11, 4 April 2017
Terheş v. Romania (dec.), no. 49933/20, 13 April 2021
Teymurazyan v. Armenia, no. 17521/09, 15 March 2018
Tim Henrik Bruun Hansen v. Denmark, no. 51072/15, 9 July 2019
Tiron v. Romania, no. 17689/03, 7 April 2009
Toniolo v. San Marino and Italy, no. 44853/10, 26 June 2012
Toshev v. Bulgaria, no. 56308/00, 10 August 2006
Toth v. Austria, 12 December 1991, Series A no. 224
Trutko v. Russia, no. 40979/04, 6 December 2016
Tsirlis and Kouloumpas v. Greece, 29 May 1997, Reports 1997-III
Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia, nos. 54381/08 and 5 others, 10 April 2018
Turan and Others v. Turkey, nos. 75805/16 and 426 others, 23 November 2021
Ţurcan v. Moldova, no. 39835/05, 23 October 2007
—V—
Vachev v. Bulgaria, no. 42987/98, ECHR 2004-VIII (extracts)
Van der Leer v. the Netherlands, 21 February 1990, Series A no. 170-A
Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50
Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, ECHR 2000-X
Varga v. Romania, no. 73957/01, 1 April 2008
Vasileva v. Denmark, no. 52792/99, 25 September 2003
Vasilevskiy and Bogdanov v. Russia, nos. 52241/14 and 74222/14, 10 July 2018
Vasiliciuc v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 15944/11, 2 May 2017

Vassis and Others v. France, no. 62736/09, 27 June 2013

Vedat Doğru v. Turkey, no. 2469/10, 5 April 2016
Velinov v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 16880/08, 19 September 2013
Venet v. Belgium, no. 27703/16, 22 October 2019
Viorel Burzo v. Romania, nos. 75109/01 and 12639/02, 30 June 2009
V.K. v. Russia, no. 9139/08, 4 April 2017
Vorontsov and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 58925/14 and 4 others, 21 January 2021
Voskuil v. the Netherlands, no. 64752/01, 22 November 2007
Vrenčev v. Serbia, no. 2361/05, 23 September 2008
—W—
W.A. v. Switzerland, 38958/16, 2 November 2021
Waite v. the United Kingdom, no. 53236/99, 10 December 2002
Wassink v. the Netherlands, 27 September 1990, Series A no. 185-A
Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114
Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7
Willcox and Hurford v. the United Kingdom (dec.). nos. 43759/10 and 43771/12, 8 January 2013
Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33
Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, ECHR 2000-III
Włoch v. Poland, no. 27785/95, ECHR 2000-XI
Włoch v. Poland (no. 2), no. 33475/08, 10 May 2011
—X—
X. v. Austria, no. 8278/78, Commission decision of 13 December 1979, DR 18
X. v. Belgium, no. 4741/71, Commission decision of 2 April 1973
X. v. Finland, no. 34806/04, 2 July 2012, ECHR 2012 (extracts)
X. v. Germany, no. 1322/62, Commission decision of 14 December 1963
X. v. Germany, no. 6659/74, Commission decision of 10 December 1975
X. v. Germany, no. 8098/77, Commission decision of 13 December 1978, DR 16
X. v. Switzerland, no. 8500/79, Commission decision of 14 December 1979, DR 18
X. v. Switzerland, no. 9012/80, Commission decision of 9 December 1980, DR 25
X. v. the United Kingdom, no. 6998/75, Commission report of 16 July 1980
X v. the United Kingdom, no. 7215/75, 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46
—Y—
Yaygin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 12254/20, 16 February 2021
Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts)
Yefimenko v. Russia, no. 152/04, 12 February 2013
Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v. Belgium, no. 10486/10, 20 December 2011
—Z—
Z.A. and Others v. Russia [GC], no. 61411/15 and 3 others, 21 November 2019
Z.H. v. Hungary, no. 28973/11, 8 November 2012
Zelčs v. Latvia, no. 65367/16, 20 February 2020

Guide On Article 5 of The European Convention On Human Rights

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide On Article 5 of The European Convention On Human Rights

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guide on Article 5

of the European Convention

Right to liberty and security

Updated on 31 August 2022

Prepared by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.

European Court of Human Rights 2/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

I. Scope of application .................................................................................. 8

II. Lawfulness of the detention under Article 5 § 1 ..................................... 11

III. Authorised deprivations of liberty under Article 5 § 1 ........................... 16

European Court of Human Rights 3/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

4. Detention of alcoholics and drug addicts ........................................................................... 29

IV. Guarantees for persons deprived of liberty ........................................... 33

European Court of Human Rights 4/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

5. Existence of damage ........................................................................................................... 52

List of cited cases ......................................................................................... 54

European Court of Human Rights 5/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

European Court of Human Rights 6/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

Article 5 of the Convention – Right to liberty and security

European Court of Human Rights 7/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

Article 5 § 1 of the Convention

European Court of Human Rights 8/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

C. Measures adopted within a prison

European Court of Human Rights 9/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

D. Security checks of air travellers

E. Deprivation of liberty outside formal arrest and detention

European Court of Human Rights 10/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

F. Positive obligations with respect to deprivation of liberty

II. Lawfulness of the detention under Article 5 § 1

European Court of Human Rights 11/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

B. Compliance with national law

C. Review of compliance with national law

E. The principle of legal certainty

European Court of Human Rights 12/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

European Court of Human Rights 13/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

H. Reasoning of decisions and the requirement of non-arbitrariness

European Court of Human Rights 14/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

I. Some acceptable procedural flaws

J. Delay in executing order of release

European Court of Human Rights 15/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

III. Authorised deprivations of liberty under Article 5 § 1

Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention

European Court of Human Rights 16/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

3. Detention must follow “after” conviction

European Court of Human Rights 17/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

4. Impact of appellate proceedings

B. Detention for non-compliance with a court order or legal

Article 5 § 1 (b) of the Convention

European Court of Human Rights 18/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

1. Non-compliance with the order of a court

2. Fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law

European Court of Human Rights 19/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention

1. Purpose of arrest or detention

European Court of Human Rights 20/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

European Court of Human Rights 21/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

2. Meaning of “reasonable suspicion”

European Court of Human Rights 22/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

3. The term “offence”

European Court of Human Rights 23/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

Article 5 § 1 (d) of the Convention

European Court of Human Rights 24/64 Last update: 31.08.2022

3. Competent legal authority

European Court of Human Rights 25/64 Last update: 31.08.2022