Olle WALL v Sweden - 41403/98 [1997] ECHR 201 (7 October 1997)

Olle WALL v Sweden - 41403/98 [1997] ECHR 201 (7 October 1997)

Applicant's detention was lawful under domestic law, not arbitrary, and authorities continuously considered less severe measures. The total length of detention was reasonable and aimed at motivating voluntary treatment. Complaint under Article 3 was lodged out of time and failed to comply with procedural requirements. No appearance of violation of Article 5 § 1 or Article 3.

Citation
[1997] ECHR 201
Parties
Applicant: Olle Wall; Respondent Government: Sweden
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
07 October 1997
Procedural Posture
Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision as to Admissibility
Outcome
Application declared inadmissible
Legal Topics
Compulsory Care of Alcohol Abusers, Deprivation of Liberty, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Six Month Rule
Human Rights Law Administrative Law Compulsory Care of Alcohol Abusers Deprivation of Liberty Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies Six Month Rule

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olle Wall

Applicant

Sweden

Respondent Government

Procedural Posture

Application to European Court of Human Rights / Decision as to Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether compulsory care order and detention violated Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention
  2. 2 Whether alleged handcuffing and transfer violated Article 3 of the Convention

Ratio Decidendi

Applicant's detention was lawful under domestic law, not arbitrary, and authorities continuously considered less severe measures. The total length of detention was reasonable and aimed at motivating voluntary treatment. Complaint under Article 3 was lodged out of time and failed to comply with procedural requirements. No appearance of violation of Article 5 § 1 or Article 3.

Court Disposition

Application declared inadmissible

Orders

  • Application rejected under Article 35 §§ 1, 3, and 4 of the Convention