The applicant had been placed in a locked facility, tied to his bed, given sedative medication and not permitted to communicate with the outside world. He had given no consent, which might have prevented those measures from being a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of article 5 of the Convention: ‘The Court further recalls that the notion of deprivation of liberty within the meaning of article 5.1 does not only comprise the objective element of a person’s confinement in a particular restricted space for a not negligible length of time. A person can only be considered to have been deprived of his liberty if, as an additional subjective element, he has not validly consented to the confinement in question.’
Citations:
44009/05, [2008] ECHR 223
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Citing:
Cited – HM v Switzerland ECHR 26-Feb-2002
. .
Cited by:
See Also – Shtukaturov v Russia ECHR 4-Mar-2010
. .
Cited – Secretary of State for The Home Department v AP SC 16-Jun-2010
The claimant challenged the terms of the control order made against him under the 2005 Act saying that it was too restrictive. Though his family was in London, the control order confined him to a house many miles away for 16 hours a day.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 05 October 2022; Ref: scu.266353