VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM - 7906/77 [1982] ECHR 3 (24 June 1982)

VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM - 7906/77 [1982] ECHR 3 (24 June 1982)

There was no violation of Article 5(1) as the detention was lawful under Belgian law and the Convention. However, there was a violation of Article 5(4) because the applicant did not have access to a judicial procedure to challenge the lawfulness of his continued detention at reasonable intervals. There was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1982] ECHR 3
Parties
Applicant: Mr. Van Droogenbroeck; Respondent: Belgian State
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
24 June 1982
Procedural Posture
Human Rights Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Partial finding of violation
Legal Topics
Arbitrary Detention, Judicial Review of Detention, Forced Labour, Servitude, Execution of Sentences
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Arbitrary Detention Judicial Review of Detention Forced Labour Servitude Execution of Sentences

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Van Droogenbroeck

Applicant

Belgian State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Human Rights Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's detention was lawful under Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had access to proceedings satisfying Article 5(4) of the Convention
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was subjected to servitude or forced labour contrary to Article 4 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

There was no violation of Article 5(1) as the detention was lawful under Belgian law and the Convention. However, there was a violation of Article 5(4) because the applicant did not have access to a judicial procedure to challenge the lawfulness of his continued detention at reasonable intervals. There was no violation of Article 4 as the work required was within the ordinary course of lawful detention.

Court Disposition

Partial finding of violation

Orders

  • No violation of Article 5(1)
  • Violation of Article 5(4)