Storck v Germany: ECHR 16 Jun 2005

ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection rejected ( res iudicata ); Violation of Art. 5-1 (placement in private clinic from 1977 to 1979); No separate issue under Arts. 5-4 and 5-5; No violation of Art. 5 (stay in private clinic in 1981); Violation of Art. 8 (placement in private clinic from 1977 to 1979); No violations of Art. 8 (stay in private clinic in 1981 and treatment in university clinic); No violations of Art. 6-1; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings.
‘The court recalls that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the national courts and that it is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret the national law. However, the Court is called to examine whether the effects of such an interpretation are compatible with the Convention (see, inter alia, Platakou v Greece, no. 38460/97, para 37, ECHR 2001-1). In securing the rights protected by the Convention, the Contracting States, notably their courts, are obliged to apply the provisions of national law in the spirit of those rights. Failure to do so can amount to a violation of the Convention Article in question, which is imputable to the State.’
‘ . . 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 to a certain limited place for a not negligible length of time. Individuals can only be considered as being deprived of their liberty if, as an additional subjective element, they have not validly consented to the confinement in question.’


61603/00, (2005) 43 EHRR 96, [2005] ECHR 406


Worldlii, Bailii


Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Ashworth Hospital Authority (Now Mersey Care National Health Service Trust) ex parte Munjaz HL 13-Oct-2005
The claimant was detained in a secure Mental Hospital. He complained at the seclusions policy applied by the hospital, saying that it departed from the Guidance issued for such policies by the Secretary of State under the Act.
Held: The House . .
CitedMH v Secretary of State for the Department of Health and others HL 20-Oct-2005
The appellant, detained for assessment under section 2, was too disabled to make an application to the court on her own behalf. After a dispute between her mother and the medical officer over her treatment, an application was made to the county . .
CitedG v E and Others CoP 26-Mar-2010
E Was born with and still suffered severe learning difficulties. The court was asked as to the extent of his capacity to make decisions, and as to where he should live, with a family member, the carer or with the local authority, which had removed . .
CitedRe DE, JE v DE, Surrey County Council and EW FD 29-Dec-2006
JE, wife of DE, who had been taken into residential care by the Local authority, said that the authority had infringed his Article 5 and 8 rights on transferring him between homes. The authority asserted that he did not have mental capacity. She . .
CitedSecretary of State for Justice v MM SC 28-Nov-2018
The respondent had been detained after conviction for arson, under the 1983 Act, and was liable to indefinite detention in hospital for medical treatment and dischargeable only by the Appellant or the First Tier Tribunal, possibly only as a . .
AdoptedP (By His Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another and similar SC 19-Mar-2014
Deprivation of Liberty
P and Q were two adolescent sisters without capacity. They complained that the arrangements made for their care amounted to an unjustified deprivation of liberty, and now appealed against rejection of their cases. In the second case, P, an adult . .
CitedIn re D (A Child) SC 26-Sep-2019
D, a young adult had a mild learning disability and other more serious conditions. He was taken into a hospital providing mental health services. The external door was locked, and a declaration was sought to permit this deprivation of his liberty, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.227297