issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 276 (2012)
28.06.2012
Judgments concerning Germany, Slovenia and Sweden
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following five
Chamber judgments1, none of which are final.
The judgments available in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).
S. v. Germany (no. 3300/10)
The applicant, S, is a Romanian national who was born in 1961 and is currently detained
in Straubing Prison. In 1996, he was found to have committed a number of offences,
including dangerous assault and sexual assault. As the sentencing court considered that
he was not to be held criminally responsible, it acquitted him and ordered his placement
in a psychiatric hospital. His stay there was terminated by the regional court dealing with
the execution of sentences in 2007. Mr S was subsequently placed in preventive
detention, ordered by the Munich I regional court in 2008. Relying in particular on Article
5 § 1 (right to liberty and security), he complained of the retrospective order for his
preventive detention, based on a provision inserted into the Criminal Code in 2004, thus
years after he committed the offences on which his preventive detention was based.
Violation of Article 5 § 1
Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 3,570 (costs and
expenses)
Schüth v. Germany (no. 1620/03)*
Just satisfaction
The applicant, Mr Bernhard Josef Schüth, is a German national. By a judgment of 23
September 2010 the Court held that the German Labour Court had failed to weigh the
rights of Mr Schüth against those of the employer – the Catholic Church -, in a manner
compatible with the Convention. It held that the German State had failed to provide Mr
Schüth with the necessary protection and that there had been a violation of Article 8
(right to respect for private and family life). Today’s judgment concerned the question of
just satisfaction (Article 41).
Just satisfaction: EUR 40,000 (pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 7,600
(costs and expenses)
Praznik v. Slovenia (no. 6234/10)
The applicant, Matjaž Praznik, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1970 and lives in
Ljubljana. Relying in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading
treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complained about the
conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison between April 2009 and March 2010,
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month
period following a judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber
of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further
examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral
request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention,
judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for
supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: