003-3755142-4289016

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 256 (2011)   24.11.2011   Preventive detention without a court ordering its execution was   not justified   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Schönbrod v. Germany (application   no. 48038/06), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and   security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   The case concerned the applicant’s preventive detention after having served his prison   sentences in full.   Principal facts   The applicant, Jakob Schönbrod, is a German national who was born in 1933, has been   convicted numerous times and has spent many years of his life in prison. In May 1996,   he was convicted by the Koblenz Regional Court of armed robbery committed with others   and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. An order for preventive detention issued by   the court at the same time was subsequently revoked in view of the fact that his   preventive detention had been ordered by a previous judgment in 1978.   After having served his prison sentence in full on 7 June 2005, Mr Schönbrod was kept in   preventive detention in Aachen prison. By that time, the Aachen Regional Court, while   having started the relevant proceedings, had not yet taken a decision as to whether the   preventive detention order against him should be executed. Only on 30 March 2006 did   the court order the execution of the preventive detention order made in 1978. Based on   an interview with Mr Schönbrod, his counsel and the prison director, as well as two   expert opinions, the court held that despite his advanced age of 72 Mr Schönbrod was   likely to commit further serious offences if released. His appeal against that decision was   dismissed and, on 21 September 2006, the Federal Constitutional Court declined to   consider his constitutional complaint (file no. 2 BvR 1614/06). In December 2007, the   Aachen Regional Court decided to suspend the preventive detention order, and in March   he was released.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Mr Schönbrod complained that his preventive detention had violated Article 5 § 1 (right   to liberty and security), among other things because, given his advanced age, he was no   longer dangerous to the public.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 November   2006.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), President,   Elisabet Fura (Sweden),   Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic),   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia),   Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein),   Ganna Yudkivska (Ukraine),   Angelika Nußberger (Germany), Judges,   and also Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 1   The Court was satisfied that, as regards the grounds for Mr Schönbrod’s preventive   detention, it had been covered by Article 5 § 1 (a) as detention “after conviction”. He   had not been detained beyond the maximum period permissible at the time of his   offence and conviction. The decision not to release him by the domestic court   responsible for the execution of sentences had been consistent with the objectives of the   judgment of the sentencing court, in that both had been aimed at preventing him from   committing further offences such as armed robberies. As regards his age and state of   health, Mr Schönbrod had failed to show that the expert reports, on which the domestic   court’s decision had been based and which had found that he was still capable of   committing serious offences, were insufficiently reasoned.   However, the Court noted that Mr Schönbrod had been detained for more than nine   months after having fully served his prison sentence without a court order, because no   decision had yet been taken as to whether his preventive detention was necessary. The   Court was prepared to accept that that situation had been in accordance with national   law, having regard to the domestic courts’ reasoning, according to which it had been   sufficient that the court dealing with the execution of sentences had begun to examine   that question. Nevertheless, the Court underlined that under its case-law the speed with   which the courts issued a new detention order after the expiry of a previous one was one   of the relevant elements in assessing whether a person’s detention, despite its   compliance with domestic law, had to be considered arbitrary. Nothing indicated that Mr   Schönbrod had in any way contributed to the delays in the procedure, which led to him   being detained without a court order for a considerable time. Those delays had rather   been caused by the domestic court and prosecutor’s office. In view of those   considerations, the Court concluded that Mr Schönbrod’s detention between the end of   his prison sentence in June 2005 and the preventive detention order of March 2006 had   to be considered arbitrary, in violation of Article 5 § 1.   Article 41   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Germany was   to pay Mr Schönbrod 5,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,015.96 in respect of costs and expenses.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s   RSS feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Petra Leppee Fraize (tel: + 33 3 90 21 29 07)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   3