Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 11227/21

Under Article 5 § 4, a person of unsound mind compulsorily confined in a psychiatric institution for an indefinite or lengthy period is thus entitled, at any rate where there is no automatic periodic review of a judicial character, to take proceedings at reasonable intervals before a court to put in issue the "lawfulness" - within the meaning of the Convention (see, inter alia, Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 171, ECHR 2012).

Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 11227/21

"If, on the other hand, it is a matter of imposing a penalty which entails deprivation of liberty based on conditions that may change over time, for example if the deprivation of liberty is based on the mental state of the convicted person or the fact that the convicted person is considered to endanger the safety of others, it follows from Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the convicted person must have the right to request a review of the lawfulness of the continued deprivation of liberty at reasonable intervals (see, for example, X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46; Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom, 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A; and Hussain and Singh v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1996, Reports [of Judgments and Decisions] 1996-I, pp. 252 and 280).

Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 11227/21

"If, on the other hand, it is a matter of imposing a penalty which entails deprivation of liberty based on conditions that may change over time, for example if the deprivation of liberty is based on the mental state of the convicted person or the fact that the convicted person is considered to endanger the safety of others, it follows from Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the convicted person must have the right to request a review of the lawfulness of the continued deprivation of liberty at reasonable intervals (see, for example, X v. the United Kingdom, 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46; Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom, 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A; and Hussain and Singh v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1996, Reports [of Judgments and Decisions] 1996-I, pp. 252 and 280).

Auszug aus EGMR, 13.12.2022 - 11227/21

Moreover, any new relevant factors that have arisen in the interval between periodic reviews must be assessed, without unreasonable delay, by a court having jurisdiction to decide whether or not the detention has become "unlawful" in the light of these new factors (see, for example, Venken and Others v. Belgium, nos. 46130/14 and 4 others, § 200, 6 April 2021, and the case-law cited therein).