Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T05:24:05.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case Note - Retrospective Preventive Detention in Germany: A Comment on the ECHR Decision Haidn v. Germany of 13 January 2011

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Grischa Merkel

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In four judgements of 13 January 2011 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg returned to the issues raised in its earlier jurisprudence regarding preventive detention (“Sicherungsverwahrung”) under German criminal law. In its decision of 17 December 2009, M. v. Germany, the Court had held that the German Criminal Law's retroactive extension of confinement in preventive detention failed to meet the requirement of lawful detention “after conviction” under Art. 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter “the Convention”), and violates the prohibition of retroactivity (Art. 7 § 1 of the Convention). The articles read as follows:

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , 01 March 2011 , pp. 968 - 977
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 For details see Grischa Merkel, Incompatible Contrasts? - Preventive Detention in Germany and the European Convention on Human Rights, 11 German Law Journal 1046 (2010), at 1050: http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1283.Google Scholar

2 ECHR, 5th Section, App. no. 19359/04.Google Scholar

3 See: http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/ENG_CONV.pdf, last accessed 30 March 2011.Google Scholar

4 ECHR, judgement of 13 January 2011, 5th Section, App. nos. 17792/07 (Kallweit v. Germany), 20008/07 (Mautes v. Germany), 27360/04 and 42225/07 (Schummer v. Germany). Google Scholar

5 Gesetz zur Bekämpfung von Sexualdelikten und sonstigen gefährlichen Straftaten, Bundesgesetzblatt 26 January 1998, part I no. 6, at 160: http://www.afane-iacquart.com/docs/2009/12/gesetz-zur-bekampfung-von-sexualdelikten-und-anderen-gefahrlichen-straftaten.pdf, last accessed 30 March 2011.Google Scholar

6 Haidn v. Germany, judgement of 13 January 2011. 5th Section, App. no. 6587/04.Google Scholar

7 Pursuant to § 1 of Article 66b of the German Criminal Code, in force until January 2011, the court may order preventive detention retrospectively, in particular, if, prior to the end of a term of imprisonment imposed on conviction for crimes punishable with at least one year's imprisonment against life, limb, personal liberty or sexual self-determination or for offences listed in Article 66 § 3, evidence comes to light which indicates that the convicted person presents a significant danger to the general public. An overall assessment of the convicted offender's personality, his offences and additionally his development during detention must have shown that he was very liable to commit serious offences by which the victims would be seriously harmed; moreover, the other conditions listed in Article 66 of the Criminal Code had to be met (see supra, note 6, para. 48). Persuant to § 1 of Article 66 of the German Criminal Code, in force until January 2011, the sentencing court may, at the time of the offender's conviction, order his preventive detention in addition to his prison sentence, if someone is sentenced for an intentional offence to at least two years’ imprisonment and if the following further conditions are satisfied. Firstly, the perpetrator must have been sentenced twice already, to at least one year's imprisonment in each case, for intentional offences committed prior to the new offence. Secondly, the perpetrator must previously have served a prison sentence or must have been detained pursuant to a measure of correction and prevention for at least two years. Thirdly, a comprehensive assessment of the perpetrator and his acts must reveal that, owing to his propensity to commit serious offences, notably those which seriously harm their victims physically or mentally or which cause serious economic damage, the perpetrator presents a danger to the general public (see supra, note 6, para. 38).Google Scholar

8 See Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) 1 StR 476/05 - judgement of 23 March 2006, para. 3 and 4: http://www.hrrstrafrecht.de/hrr/1/05/1-476-05-1.php?referer=db, last accessed 30 March 2011; supra, note 2, para. 6 and 7Google Scholar

9 Bayerisches Gesetz zur Unterbringung von besonders rückfallgefährdeten hochgefährlichen Straftätern (BayStrUBG) of 24 Dezember 2001, see Bayerisches Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt, Seite 978.Google Scholar

10 Supra, note 2, para. 10-12, see also Sabine Rückert, Wird er es wieder tun?, Zeit Online 08/2003: http://www.zeit.de/2003/08/Prognose, last accessed 30 March 2011.Google Scholar

11 Supra, note 2, para. 16.Google Scholar

12 Bundesverfassungsgericht, judgement of 10 February 2004 - 2 BvR 834/02, see: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/entscheidungen/rs20040210 2bvr083402.html, last accessed 30 March 2011; supra, note 2, para. 18 and 19.Google Scholar

13 Supra, note 11, para. 162; supra, note 2, para. 20-23.Google Scholar

14 Supra, note 11, para. 164-173; supra, note 2, para. 24.Google Scholar

15 BVerfGE 109, 133 – 2 BvR 2029/01, Decision of 5 February 2004: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericrit.de/entscrieidunBen/rs20040205_2bvr202901.html, last accessed 30 March 2011. For further information see, Dünkel/van Zyl Smit, Preventive Detention of Dangerous Offenders Reexamined: A Comment on two decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG – 2 BvR 2029/01 of 5 February 2004 and BVerfG – 2 BvR 834/02 – 2 BvR 1588/02 of 10 February 2004) and the Federal Draft Bill on Preventive Detention of 9 March 2004, 5 German Law Journal 619 (2004): http://www.germanlawjournal.com/pdfs/Vol05No06/PDF_Vol_05_No_06_619-637_Public_Duenkel_van_Zyl_Smit.pdf Google Scholar

16 Supra, note 2, para. 58.Google Scholar

17 See supra, note 3.Google Scholar

18 Supra, note 2, para. 84.Google Scholar

19 Supra, note 2, para. 79. For further critical arguments see Merkel (supra, note 1), at 1056.Google Scholar

20 Supra, note 2, para. 93-95.Google Scholar

21 Supra, note 7, para. 8-12.Google Scholar

22 Supra, note 2, para. 30-33.Google Scholar

23 Gesetz zur Einführung der nachträglichen Sicherungsverwahrung of 23 July 2004, Bundesgesetzblatt, Jahrgang 2004, Teil 1 Nr. 39.Google Scholar

24 Landgericht Passau, judgement of 10 June 2005 – KLs 209 Js 8551/98.Google Scholar

25 Supra, note 7.Google Scholar

26 Supra, note 7, para. 22-25, and 32-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 Supra, note 2, para. 30-35.Google Scholar

28 BVerfGE 111, 307–322 – 2 BvR 1481/04, Decision of 14 October 2004: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericrit.de/entscrieidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104.html, last accessed 30 March 2011.Google Scholar

29 Gesetz zur Neuordnung des Rechts der Sicherungsverwahrung und zu begleitenden Regelungen of 22 December 2010, Bundesgesetzblatt, Jahrgang 2010, Teil I, Nr. 68, at 2300.Google Scholar

30 Bundesgesetzblatt (supra, note 23), at 2305.Google Scholar

31 For further information see Merkel (supra, note 1), at 1047.Google Scholar

32 For more details see Merkel (supra, note 1), at 1053.Google Scholar

33 See press release, issued by the Registrar of the ECHR no. 18 of 13 January 2011.Google Scholar

34 § 121 Abs. 1 Nr. 2, Abs. 2 Nr. 3 of the Judicature Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz) as amended on 24 July 2010 (BGBl. I S. 976).Google Scholar

35 Oberlandesgericht Celle, decision of 25 May 2010 – 2 Ws 169/10, NStZ-RR 2010, at 322: http://openjur.de/u/52683.html, last accessed 30 March 2011; OLG Stuttgart, decision of 1 June 2010 – 1 Ws 57/10, Justiz 2010, at 346: http://openjur.de/u/52862.html, last accessed 30 March 2011; OLG Koblenz, decision of 30 September 2010 - 1 Ws 108/10, JR 2010, at 306: http://openjur.de/u/56656.html, last accessed 30 March 2011; OLG Nürnberg, decision of 24 June 2010 - 1 Ws 315/10, NStZ 2010, at 574: http://openjur.de/u/52275.html, last accessed 30 March 2011; and 7 July 2010 – 1 Ws 342/10: http://openjur.de/u/54707.html, last accessed 30 March 2011.Google Scholar

36 OLG Karlsruhe, decision of 15 July 2010 - 2 Ws 458/09, Justiz 2010, 350; NStZ-RR 2010, 322: http://lrbw.juris.de/cgi-bin/laender_rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bw&nr=13198, last accessed 30 March 2011; OLG Frankfurt, decision of 24 June 2010 - 3 Ws 485/10, NStZ 2010, at 573; NStZ-RR 2010, at 321: http://openjur.de/u/52680.html, last accessed 30 March 2011; OLG Hamm, decision of 6 July 2010 - 4 Ws 157/10, StRR 2010, at 352: http://openjur.de/u/52682.html, last accessed 30 March 2011, and decision of 22 July 2010 - 4 decision of Ws 180/10, III-4 Ws 180/10: http://www.strafrecht-online.de/inhalte/strafrechtlicheentscheidungen/aktuelle-urteile/olg-hamm-beschl-v-22072010-4-ws-18010/, last accessed 30 March 2011; SchlHolstOLG SchlHA 2010, at 296.Google Scholar

37 Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 12 May 2010 - 4 StR 577/09: http://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/hrr/4/09/4-577-09.php, last accessed 30 March 2011.Google Scholar

38 Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 9 November 2010 – 5 StR 394/10: http://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/hrr/5/10/5-394-10.php, last accessed 30 March 2011.Google Scholar

39 For further information see: http://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/pressemitteilungen/bvg10-117.html, last accessed 30 March 2011.Google Scholar