Communicated on 18 April 2018

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 46026/16 Jörg KEMPKES against Germany lodged on 28 July 2016

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the compliance of the applicant ’ s preventive detention with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. The domestic court of first instance took its decision of 10 June 2014, by which it ordered the applicant ’ s preventive detention to continue, nearly three months after the expiry, on 19 March 2014, of the one-year time-limit under Article 67e of the Criminal Code for judicial review of whether the applicant ’ s preventive detention was still necessary. The Court of Appeal quashed that decision on 22 September 2014 and remitted the case to the court of first instance, which again ordered the applicant ’ s preventive detention to continue in its decision of 15 May 2015.

Relying on the Court ’ s judgments in the cases of Schönbrod v. Germany , (no. 48038/06, 24 November 2011) and H.W. v. Germany ( no. 17167/11 , 19 September 2013), the applicant claims that the continuation of his preventive detention was unlawful and thus breached his right to liberty in view of the domestic courts ’ failure to comply with the statutory time-limit.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies in respect of his complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Conventi on, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?

2. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the Court ’ s case-law (see notably Schönbrod v. Germany , no. 48038/06, 24 November 2011; and H.W. v. Germany , no. 17167/11 , 19 September 2013), was his preventive detention “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in view of the domestic courts ’ failure to comply with the statutory time ‑ limit for periodic review of the necessity of that detention which had expired on 19 March 2014? Did the domestic court of first instance act with the necessary diligence as regards the requirement to speedily take a decision on the necessity of the applicant ’ s preventive detention following the remittal of the case by the Court of Appeal?