Wrongful Imprisonment for Fraud Compensation Case
| Jurisdiction | Germany |
| Court | Federal Supreme Court (Germany) |
| Judgment Date | 14 July 1971 |
| Date | 14 July 1971 |
Treaties Interpretation of Principles and rules of interpretation Interpretation by reference to corresponding terms contained in municipal law of contracting States European Convention on Human Rights, 1950, Article 5 The law of the Federal Republic of Germany
The individual in international law In general Human rights and freedoms European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 Article 5 Right to liberty and security of person Detention on remand Whether unlawful detention creates right to compensation under Article 5 (5) Whether detention on remand included in permissible exceptions under Article 5 (1) (c) Interpretation of terms in Convention by reference to concepts contained in municipal law Interpretation of Article 5 (1) (c) as one unit together with Article 5 (3) Whether lawfulness of detention for purposes of Convention to be decided according to municipal law Whether reasonable suspicion that a person has committed an offence sufficient on its own to justify deprivation of liberty under Article 5 (1) (c) Conviction and sentence Accused serving part of one-year prison sentence and subsequently acquitted in fresh trial Original conviction and sentence which were objectively wrong Whether right to compensation under Article 5 (5) where facts before the court at the time justified conviction and sentence Whether any right to compensation under Article 5 (5) where judgment and sentence have become final under municipal law The law of the Federal Republic of Germany
Summary: The facts:The plaintiff2 pursued a claim for compensation assigned to her by K, a tax consultant. In 1957 K had spent 26 days in detention on remand on suspicion of fraud. In October 1957 he was sentenced to a one-year term of imprisonment, of which he served seven months. Two applications for a fresh trial were rejected but a third application succeeded and K was acquitted of fraud by the Provincial Court of Berlin in 1967. The same court, however, rejected his claims for compensation for the time which he had spent in prison and for his legal expenses. His appeal to the Court of Appeal of Berlin was unsuccessful.
The plaintiff appealed on a point of law to the Federal Supreme Court, arguing that K had been entitled to compensation for the deprivation of his liberty resulting from his detention on remand and his subsequent conviction and imprisonment, and that the refusal of the lower courts to grant such compensation constituted a violation of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950.
Held:The appeal was dismissed.
(1) The notion of detention on remand under German law was not identical with that of arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose
of bringing him before the competent legal authority contained in Article 5 (1) (c) of the Convention. It had to be borne in mind, however, that the drawing of such a conclusion from the wording of an international treaty was to be made with caution since such treaties had to respect the different provisions, legal concepts and peculiarities of all the States which were parties to them and were perhaps deliberately drafted in general terms. The terms used could not therefore always correspond to those used in all the relevant municipal laws(2) Although Article 5 (1) (c) expressly covered only arrest or detention effected for the purpose of bringing a person before the competent legal authority, it was to be interpreted as one unit together with Article 5 (3) with the result that it applied also to cases of detention on remand.
(3) The question of whether a detention was lawful for the purposes of the Convention was required by the Convention itself to be decided in accordance with municipal law. Where municipal provisions covering the admissibility of detention on remand were stricter than those contained in the Convention it was sufficient to examine merely whether the municipal provisions had been complied with.
(4) Under Article 5 (1) (c) a reasonable suspicion that a person had committed an offence was sufficient on its own to justify his being deprived of his liberty.
(5) A judgment imposing an objectively wrong sentence of imprisonment and the serving of that sentence could not form the basis of a right to compensation under Article 5 (5) of the Convention if the facts on which the court had based its judgment justified the sentence and the court had determined those facts with the degree of care required by procedural principles in accordance with the rule of law. The judge could only assess which decision was required by the legal system in accordance with the known factual situation at the time of his decision. Consequently the enforcement of a judgment could not be considered unlawful within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention if, at the time of the judgment, the facts imputed to the accused could only be regarded as constituting a criminal offence. In such a case the judge was even required to convict the accused.
(6) There was no right to compensation under Article 5(5) of the Convention for a criminal conviction which had been enforced, where the decision had, in accordance with a procedure prescribed by municipal law, acquired the status of an enforceable judgment. This applied even if it later transpired that the court had infringed procedural rules or made errors in law, provided that this had not led and could not have led to the rescission of the judgment. Such a judgment could still be regarded as having been arrived at in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. Consequently the enforcement of a sentence of imprisonment imposed by such a judgment was also lawful. It followed that a criminal judgment, which had been influenced by a lack of care or even negligent breach of duty on the part of the judge, could be enforced when it became final without any violation of the Convention.
The text of the relevant part of the judgment of the Court commences on the following page.
The plaintiff pursues a claim for compensation assigned to her by K, a tax consultant. In the plaintiff's opinion K was entitled to claim compensation having been involved in criminal proceedings in which he was acquitted.
In 1957 K spent 26 days in detention on remand on suspicion of...
Um weiterzulesen
Jetzt Kostenlos StartenVollständigen Zugriff mit einer kostenlosen 7-Tage-Testversion freischalten
Verändern Sie Ihre juristische Recherche mit vLex
-
Vollständiger Zugriff auf die größte Sammlung von Common-Law-Rechtsprechung auf einer einzigen Plattform
-
Erstellen Sie KI-generierte Fallzusammenfassungen, die wichtige rechtliche Fragen sofort hervorheben
-
Erweiterte Suchfunktionen mit präzisen Filter- und Sortieroptionen
-
Umfassende juristische Inhalte mit Dokumenten aus über 100 Gerichtsbarkeiten
-
Vertraut von 2 Millionen Fachleuten, einschließlich führender internationaler Kanzleien
-
Greifen Sie auf KI-gestützte Recherche mit Vincent AI zu: Suchanfragen in natürlicher Sprache mit verifizierten Zitaten
Vollständigen Zugriff mit einer kostenlosen 7-Tage-Testversion freischalten
Verändern Sie Ihre juristische Recherche mit vLex
-
Vollständiger Zugriff auf die größte Sammlung von Common-Law-Rechtsprechung auf einer einzigen Plattform
-
Erstellen Sie KI-generierte Fallzusammenfassungen, die wichtige rechtliche Fragen sofort hervorheben
-
Erweiterte Suchfunktionen mit präzisen Filter- und Sortieroptionen
-
Umfassende juristische Inhalte mit Dokumenten aus über 100 Gerichtsbarkeiten
-
Vertraut von 2 Millionen Fachleuten, einschließlich führender internationaler Kanzleien
-
Greifen Sie auf KI-gestützte Recherche mit Vincent AI zu: Suchanfragen in natürlicher Sprache mit verifizierten Zitaten
Vollständigen Zugriff mit einer kostenlosen 7-Tage-Testversion freischalten
Verändern Sie Ihre juristische Recherche mit vLex
-
Vollständiger Zugriff auf die größte Sammlung von Common-Law-Rechtsprechung auf einer einzigen Plattform
-
Erstellen Sie KI-generierte Fallzusammenfassungen, die wichtige rechtliche Fragen sofort hervorheben
-
Erweiterte Suchfunktionen mit präzisen Filter- und Sortieroptionen
-
Umfassende juristische Inhalte mit Dokumenten aus über 100 Gerichtsbarkeiten
-
Vertraut von 2 Millionen Fachleuten, einschließlich führender internationaler Kanzleien
-
Greifen Sie auf KI-gestützte Recherche mit Vincent AI zu: Suchanfragen in natürlicher Sprache mit verifizierten Zitaten
Vollständigen Zugriff mit einer kostenlosen 7-Tage-Testversion freischalten
Verändern Sie Ihre juristische Recherche mit vLex
-
Vollständiger Zugriff auf die größte Sammlung von Common-Law-Rechtsprechung auf einer einzigen Plattform
-
Erstellen Sie KI-generierte Fallzusammenfassungen, die wichtige rechtliche Fragen sofort hervorheben
-
Erweiterte Suchfunktionen mit präzisen Filter- und Sortieroptionen
-
Umfassende juristische Inhalte mit Dokumenten aus über 100 Gerichtsbarkeiten
-
Vertraut von 2 Millionen Fachleuten, einschließlich führender internationaler Kanzleien
-
Greifen Sie auf KI-gestützte Recherche mit Vincent AI zu: Suchanfragen in natürlicher Sprache mit verifizierten Zitaten
Vollständigen Zugriff mit einer kostenlosen 7-Tage-Testversion freischalten
Verändern Sie Ihre juristische Recherche mit vLex
-
Vollständiger Zugriff auf die größte Sammlung von Common-Law-Rechtsprechung auf einer einzigen Plattform
-
Erstellen Sie KI-generierte Fallzusammenfassungen, die wichtige rechtliche Fragen sofort hervorheben
-
Erweiterte Suchfunktionen mit präzisen Filter- und Sortieroptionen
-
Umfassende juristische Inhalte mit Dokumenten aus über 100 Gerichtsbarkeiten
-
Vertraut von 2 Millionen Fachleuten, einschließlich führender internationaler Kanzleien
-
Greifen Sie auf KI-gestützte Recherche mit Vincent AI zu: Suchanfragen in natürlicher Sprache mit verifizierten Zitaten
