Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 30954/05

Therefore that case is to be seen as pertaining more to non-compliance with a court order, considering that the Court has previously held that the phrase "obligation prescribed by law" denotes an obligation of a specific and concrete nature already incumbent on the person concerned (Ciulla v. Italy, 22 February 1989, § 36, Series A no. 148).

Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 30954/05

Concerning the applicant's complaint about the alleged unlawfulness of her placement in a psychiatric hospital (which, as in L.M. v. Latvia, no. 26000/02, 19 July 2011, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, and numerous other cases, the Court will analyse from the angle of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention), the Court notes that the Government have not commented on the civil proceedings concerning the applicant's complaint based on, inter alia, section 2352 of the Civil Law (see above, paragraph 31), in which the applicant sought to establish that she had been deprived of her liberty unlawfully and thus entitled to compensation, and which ended in a final decision of the Senate of the Supreme Court of 23 May 2005.

Auszug aus EGMR, 29.11.2011 - 30954/05

Turning next to the question of whether the order of the Saldus District Court was "lawful", it is necessary to verify if it was compatible with the essential objective of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent individuals being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see Assanidze v. Georgia [GC], no. 71503/01, § 170, ECHR 2004-II, and H.L. v. the United Kingdom, no. 45508/99, § 115, ECHR 2004-IX).