De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium: ECHR 18 Jun 1971

ECHR Judgment (Just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient 2832/66; 2835/66; 2899/66
Hudoc Preliminary objection partially allowed (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 5-4; Just satisfaction reserved 2832/66; 2835/66; 2899/66
The possibility of a detainee being heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation is a fundamental procedural guarantee in matters of deprivation of liberty: ‘At first sight, the wording of article 5(4) might make one think that it guarantees the right of the detainee always to have supervised by a court the lawfulness of a previous decision which has deprived him of his liberty . . Where the decision depriving a person of his liberty is one taken by an administrative body, there is no doubt that article 5(4) obliges the contracting states to make available to the person detained a right of recourse to a court; but there is nothing to indicate that the same applies when the decision is made by a court at the close of judicial proceedings. In the latter case, the supervision required by article 5(4) is incorporated in the decision; this is so, for example, where a sentence of imprisonment is pronounced after ‘conviction by a competent court’ (article 5(1)(a) of the Convention).’


2832/66, 2835/66, 2899/66, (1971) 1 EHRR 373, [1971] ECHR 1


Worldlii, Worldlii


European Convention on Human Rights 5(4)


See AlsoIn re De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v Belgium (No 1) ECHR 18-Nov-1970
The applicants had been detained under Belgian vagrancy laws. An earlier decision had found that their rights had been infringed because of the lack of effective means for them to challenge their detention. The Belgian government said that the . .

Cited by:

CitedGiles, Regina (on the Application of) v Parole Board and Another HL 31-Jul-2003
The defendant had been sentenced for offences of violence, but an additional period was imposed to protect the public. He had been refused leave for reconsideration of that part of his sentence after he completed the normal segment of his sentence. . .
CitedRegina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
See AlsoCases Of De Wilde, Ooms And Versyp (‘Vagrancy’) v Belgium (Article 50) ECHR 10-Mar-1972
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.164869