DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BERNHARDT

I have voted against the statement in number 2 of the operative part of the judgment "that it is unnecessary to examine the complaints based on Article 5 (art. 5)". In my view, the Court should have also examined the question whether the decision of the Court of Appeal of The Hague of 21 September 1984, which extended by one year the applicant ’ s period of placement at the Government ’ s disposal, has been taken "in accordance with a procedure described by law" (Article 5 § 1) (art. 5-1).

The following dates are of significance in this regard. On 17 May 1984 , the Attorney General requested the extension of the applicant ’ s placement at the Government ’ s disposal. Under Article 37 (h) of the Netherlands Criminal Code, the Court of Appeal was required to take its decision within a period of two months, that is, by 17 July 1984 . However, the decision was only taken on 21 September 1984 , more than two months beyond the time-limit. The applicant ’ s previous placement had already expired on 8 July 1984 (cf. paragraph 11 of the judgment).

In cases involving deprivation of liberty, the various procedural guarantees in Article 5 (art. 5) are of the utmost importance and should be given equal weight. The finding that a decision has not been taken "speedily", in violation of Article 5 § 4 (art. 5-4), should not have absolved the Court from examining the guarantees under paragraph 1 of that Article (art. 5-1).

[*]  Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered 27/1989/187/247.  The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[*]   As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11) to the Convention which came into force on 1 January 1990 .

[*]    The amendments to the Rules of Court which entered into force on 1 April 1989 are applicable to this case.

[*]  *     Note by the Registrar: 30/1989/190/250.

[*]  Note by the Registrar: For practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 185-B of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.