CASE OF DENIS AND IRVINE v. BELGIUM
Hearing: Denis and Irvine v. Belgium (nos. 62819/17 and 63921/17) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-10-21 00:00:00)
Application no.: 62819/17
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2021-06-01 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0601JUD006281917
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 5;5-1;5-1-e;5-4
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Mārtiņš Mits;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Síofra O'Leary;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turković
Represented by: VERPOORTEN P.
Issue: Social Protection Act of 9 April 1930 ; Compulsory Confinement Act of 5 May 2014 ; Compulsory Confinement and Justice Law of 4 May 2016 ; Law of 26 June 1990 on the protection of persons of unsound mind

Strasbourg case-law cited: A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 3455/05, § 202, ECHR 2009;Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, § 45, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 V;Baranowski v. Poland, no 28358/95, § 52, ECHR 2000 III;Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 41, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 III;Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no 23755/07, 5 July 2016;Claes v. Belgium, no 43418/09, § 110, 10 January 2013;Creangă v. Romania [GC], no 29226/03, § 101, 23 February 2012;De Donder and De Clippel v. Belgium, no 8595/06, § 105, 6 December 2011;De Schepper v. Belgium, no 27428/07, § 39, 13 October 2009;Del Río Prada v. Spain [GC], no 42750/09, §§ 123-124, ECHR 2013;Douiyeb v. the Netherlands [GC], no 31464/96, § 57, 4 August 1999;Enhorn v. Sweden, no 56529/00, § 36, ECHR 2005-I;Gorzelik and Others v. Poland [GC], no 44158/98, § 67, ECHR 2004 I;Idalov v. Russia [GC], no 5826/03, § 154, 22 May 2012;Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary [GC], no 47287/15, §§ 171 172 and 177, 21 November 2019;Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, 4 December 2018;Jėčius v. Lithuania, no 34578/97, § 68, ECHR 2000 IX;Khlaifia and Others v. Italy [GC], no 16483/12, 15 December 2016;Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v. Hungary [GC], no 18030/11, § 184, 8 November 2016;Magyar Kétfarkú Kutya Párt v. Hungary [GC], no 201/17, § 95, 20 January 2020;Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no 72508/13, 28 November 2017;Mooren v. Germany [GC], no 11364/03, 9 July 2009;Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no 54825/00, § 116, ECHR 2005 II (extracts);Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], no 25358/12, § 180, 24 January 2017;Plesó v. Hungary, no 41242/08, § 59, 2 October 2012;Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, 20 March 2018;Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no 18052/11, 31 January 2019;S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, 22 October 2018;S.M. v. Croatia [GC], no 60561/14, 25 June 2020;Saadi v. the United Kingdom [GC], no 13229/03, § 67, ECHR 2008;Simons v. Belgium (dec.), no 71407/10, 28 August 2012;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012;Taxquet v. Belgium [GC], no 926/05, § 83, ECHR 2010;Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, 24 June 1982, Series A no 50;Van Zandbergen v. Belgium, no 4258/11, § 37, 2 February 2016;W.D. v. Belgium, no 73548/13, § 122, 6 September 2016;Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no 33;Witold Litwa v. Poland, no 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000 III;Z.A. and Others v. Russia [GC], nos. 61411/15 and 3 others, § 161, 21 November 2019
Conclusion: No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Order release;Review of lawfulness of detention)
Separate opinion: TRUE