DETERMINING THE PERIOD OF DETENTION
CASE OF WEMHOFF v. GERMANY
(Application Number: 2122/64)
It remains to be determined whether the end of the period of detention to which Article 5 (3) (art. 5-3) relates is the day the conviction becomes final or the day the charge is established, even if only by the court of first instance._cc781905-5cde-3194 -bb3b-136bad5cf58d_ The Court finds the second interpretation appropriate. The assessment that a person convicted in a first-instance court was in the position provided for by Article 5 (1)(a)(art. 5-1-a), which allows for deprivation of liberty "after conviction", regardless of whether he has been detained so far, seemed decisive. (§9)
For precedent decision here click here.
AFFAIRE ABDO c. TURQUIE (Requête no 17681/04§42)
On the merits, the Court recalls that the expiry date of the deadline referred to in Article 5, paragraph 3, of the ECHR is “the day on which the substance of the charge is decided in the first-instance courts” (see Wemhoff v. Germany, 27 June 1968, § 9, series A no. 7). , and Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 147, CEDH 2000-IV).
AFFAIRE ABDO c. TURQUIE (Requête no 17681/04§42)
For precedent decision here click.
SOLMAZ V. TURKEY
(Application Number: 27561/02)
The successive and multiple periods of detention (for example, re-detention after release or continued detention after the Supreme Court's reversal decision) must be considered as a whole, and in this way, the Court must assess the reasonableness of the applicant's detention period. Therefore, the ECtHR must evaluate the periods in which the applicant was held in detention after conviction, pursuant to Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention, by subtracting the period during which the applicant was deprived of his total liberty.
For precedent decision here click here.
