Tokens: 65
.
In
practice
,
the
Constitutional
Court
distorted
the
meaning
and
purpose
of
M.
v.
Germany
[
180
]
insofar
as
M.
considered
the
manner
of
execution
of
the
preventive
detention
in
order
to
reach
a
detainee
-
friendly
result
,
namely
,
to
enlarge
the
scope
of
application
of
Article
7
of
the
Convention
and
submit
this
measure
to
the
fully
-
fledged
principle
of
legality
,
including
the
principle
of
nulla
poena
sine
lege
praevia
.
However
,
the
Karlsruhe
court
reversed
the
argument
in
order
to
reach
a
detainee
-
unfriendly
result
,
namely
to
narrow
down
the
scope
of
Article
7
and
deprive
the
Sicherungsverwahrten
of
the
benefit
of
that
precise
principle
.
This
is
obviously
the
result
of
the
non
-
alignment
of
the
Strasbourg
and
Karlsruhe
courts
on
the
applicability
of
the
principle
of
nulla
poena
sine
lege
praevia
to
preventive
detention
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O