Arbitrary detention in psychiatric hospital leads to reforms to protect liberty

Winterwerp v. the Netherlands  | 1979

Arbitrary detention in psychiatric hospital leads to reforms to protect liberty

Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. …

Opening words of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights


In 1968, Frits Winterwerp was put into a psychiatric hospital. Local courts had ordered him to be kept there, and throughout the 1970s they gave annual orders to ensure that he could not leave. When entering the institution Mr Winterwerp had automatically lost control of his money and his assets.

Mr Winterwerp insisted that he had no mental illness, that he was not a danger to himself or others, and that he should not be locked up in an institution. He made four different requests to be released – all of which were refused.

Mr Winterwerp argued that he had been prevented from making his case in the courts, and that they kept extending his detention without hearing his objections. 

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court ruled that, whilst the authorities may detain a person with a mental illness, the person should have the right to challenge the decision before the courts. They should also have the chance to be heard in court and be represented by a lawyer.

However, Mr Winterwerp had been repeatedly refused permission to make his case in court as to why he should be released. There had also been no representative in the Dutch courts to make his case for him. Indeed, he was never told when the proceedings were happening, or what the outcome was.

Therefore, although there had been court reviews of Mr Winterwerp’s detention, he had been almost totally prevented from making his case against it. This had violated his right to liberty and his right to a fair trial.


In 1980 new legislation was introduced. This required that, in all cases of involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital, the patient has the right to be heard when a court is considering whether the patient should stay detained. 

The law was also changed so that patients who are involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital do not automatically lose control over their property.

Mr Winterwerp was released from psychiatric detention, to live in a hostel during his reintegration into society.

Related examples

Illegal detention of innocent man and reforms to protect the right to liberty

Sergey Solovyev lost three years of his life in a cell, after being falsely accused of manslaughter. At one point his detention was extended without an order from a judge and contrary to Russian law. The European court ruled that Mr Solvyev’s right to liberty had been breached. Russia changed its criminal laws to prevent unlawful detention orders and protect the right to liberty.

Read more

Almost three years’ imprisonment for a crime he did not commit – and reforms to protect liberty

Wrongfully accused of murder and attempted burglary, Andrzej Leszczak was detained for almost three years before finally being acquitted at trial. The European court ruled that the Polish authorities had not given proper reasons for holding Mr Leszczak and had not explored different ways of making sure he attended his trial. Following a series of such cases, Poland changed laws to protect...

Read more

Man given 3 months’ detention for a crime he didn’t commit - and reforms to protect the right to liberty

Locked in a windowless cell, I. I. spent 3 months in pre-trial detention for a crime he did not commit. After he developed various illnesses, the charges against I.I. were dropped because of a lack of evidence and he was released. Following a series of similar cases, the law in Bulgaria was changed to protect people’s right to liberty.

Read more

Unfair trial leads to reforms to protect justice

César Igual Coll was cleared of failing to pay family maintenance, because he was unemployed and had no money. However, his case went to appeal. The appeal court held no public hearing and no evidence was taken from him. Nevertheless, César was convicted and sentenced to jail. The European court ruled that he had been denied a fair hearing. Changes were made to protect fair trials in Spain.

Read more

Legal reforms after innocent hotel director was jailed for 14 months without proper evidence

Hotel director Juozas Jėčius was held for over 14 months whilst awaiting trial for murder. However, there had never been any proper evidence against him, and he was acquitted at trial. The Strasbourg court ruled that Mr Jėčius’ incarceration had violated his right to liberty. Following the Court’s judgment, new measures were introduced to help avoid unjustified detention.

Read more

Reforms to prevent detention without a court’s permission

Allar Harkmann was arrested and detained, without a court hearing his case or examining the legality of his detention. He was only released after 15 days. The Strasbourg court ruled that the failure to have Mr Harkmann’s detention promptly reviewed by a judge, and the lack of any opportunity for him to obtain compensation, had violated his right to liberty.

Read more

Woman’s 4-year detention without trial leads to freedom protections

Josette Prencipe was in her mid-sixties when she was arrested and detained for almost 4 years, without facing trial. She was accused of making illegal bank transfers. The Strasbourg court ruled that the authorities had breached Mrs Prencipe’s right to liberty. The case triggered a series of reforms, including a new time limit on pre-trial detention.

Read more

Changes to legal procedures after detainee denied the opportunity to make his case in court

Peter Frommelt asked to be released whilst awaiting trial for financial crimes. When this was considered on appeal, neither he nor his lawyer were allowed to make any legal arguments. The Strasbourg court ruled that this had been unfair. The procedures were changed, allowing people to make comments to a court in such circumstances.

Read more

There must be proper rules on detention without trial

Giuseppe Toniolo was detained in San Marino for five weeks whilst awaiting extradition. The Strasbourg court ruled that the law in San Marino did not set out clear rules for his imprisonment, meaning that he could be detained arbitrarily and could not effectively make a claim to be released.

Read more