B.D. v. BELGIUM - 50058/12 (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security : Second Section) French Text [2024] ECHR 705 (27 August 2024)

B.D. v. BELGIUM - 50058/12 (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security : Second Section) French Text [2024] ECHR 705 (27 August 2024)

The applicant was repeatedly deprived of an effective opportunity to challenge the legality of the extension of his detention, as he was entirely dependent on his lawyer to appeal and was unable to do so when his lawyers refused. This, combined with the structural problem of detaining mentally ill persons in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ECHR 705
Parties
Applicant: B. D.; Respondent: Belgium
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
27 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Individual Application (article 34 Echr) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed; violations found
Legal Topics
Article 5 ECHR, Right to Liberty and Security, Detention of Persons of Unsound Mind, Access to Court, Legal Representation, Conditions of Detention
Human Rights Law Mental Health Law Criminal Procedure Article 5 ECHR Right to Liberty and Security Detention of Persons of Unsound Mind Access to Court Legal Representation +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B. D.

Applicant

Belgium

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Individual Application (article 34 Echr) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was deprived of an effective possibility to challenge the legality of the extension of his detention under Article 5 § 4 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's detention in psychiatric annexes of ordinary prisons was 'lawful' under Article 5 § 1 ECHR given the lack of appropriate therapeutic care

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was repeatedly deprived of an effective opportunity to challenge the legality of the extension of his detention, as he was entirely dependent on his lawyer to appeal and was unable to do so when his lawyers refused. This, combined with the structural problem of detaining mentally ill persons in unsuitable prison facilities without appropriate care, constituted violations of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; violations found

Orders

  • The State must pay the applicant EUR 7,300 for non-pecuniary damage within three months, plus any tax due.
  • Interest at the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points will accrue after three months until payment.