Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-nptnm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-13T23:17:58.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp Cases

European Court of Human Rights.  18 November 1970 ; 18 June 1971 ; 10 March 1972 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — Article 26 (the domestic remedies rule) — Jurisdiction of the Court to examine submissions of non-exhaustion — Question of estoppel — Questions of availability and sufficiency of a supposed remedy — Significance of the condition of settled legal opinion

Article 4(2) — (prohibition against forced or compulsory labour) — Whether a breach of Article 5(4) in itself removes justification for imposition of such labour upon detained person

Article 5(1)(e) (detention of vagrants) — Meaning of the terms “vagrant” and “lawful” in the context of Article 5(1) — Article 5(3) (right of person deprived of liberty to judicial examination) — Article 5(4) (right of person deprived of liberty to have lawfulness of deprivation decided by a court) — Compliance with Article 5(4) where deprivation is ordered by a court — Meaning of the term “court” in the context of Article 5(4) — Procedural guarantees necessitated by gravity of possible consequences — Administrative nature of magisterial decision — Failure to provide judicial remedy — Requests for release addressed to administrative authorities — Possibility of appeal to Counseil d’Etat in event of unlawful refusal to release — Absence of judicial review of exercise of such discretion outside the ambit of Article 5(4)

Article 7 (“nulla poena sine lege”) — Inapplicability to noncriminal matter

Article 8 (respect for correspondence) — Whether a breach of Article 5(4) in itself removes justification for supervising detained person’s correspondence — Whether otherwise justifiable — Power of appreciation left to Contracting States in determining what is “necessary” for the avoidance of certain contingencies

Article 13 (right of effective remedy before a national tribunal) — Whether necessary to determine the question

Article 50 — Just satisfaction — Damages for unlawful detention — Whether Article 26 is applicable to proceedings in regard to Article 50 — Elements to be taken into consideration by the Court in respect of such proceedings — Absence of damage on the particular facts having regard to the Court’s former findings

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)