I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in WICK v. GERMANY.

Information

  • Judgment date: 2024-06-04
  • Communication date: 2020-10-12
  • Application number(s): 22321/19
  • Country:   DEU
  • Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-4, 6, 6-1
  • Conclusion:
    Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings
    Article 6-1 - Access to court
    Civil rights and obligations
    Dispute)
  • Result: Violation
    • SEE FINAL JUDGMENT

JURI Prediction

  • Probability: 0.529939
  • Prediction: Violation

  • Consistent


Legend

 In line with the court's judgment
 In opposition to the court's judgment
Darker color: higher probability
: In line with the court's judgment  
: In opposition to the court's judgment

Communication text used for prediction

The application concerns the applicant’s access to a judicial review of the enhanced security regime during his detention and repeated prison transfers.
Since March 2015 the applicant has been transferred twelve times to different prisons, including the latest transfers from Weiterstadt (19 April 2017) to Lübeck (26 July 2017) and then to Bruchsal prison (17 October 2017).
On 6 September 2017 the Darmstadt Regional Court, which had jurisdiction over Weiterstadt prison, rejected the applicant’s complaint about the enhanced security regime.
Without deciding on the merits, it found that, due to a permanent transfer to Lübeck prison, the complaint had lost its object because the applicant was no longer subject to any measures in Weiterstadt prison.
The Frankfurt Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal as inadmissible without providing reasons.
On 10 October 2017 the Lübeck Regional Court, which had jurisdiction over Lübeck prison, rejected the applicant’s complaints about the enhanced security regime and the prison transfer.
Without deciding on the merits, it found that, due to the temporary nature of the transfer to Lübeck prison, the Lübeck prison authorities were the wrong respondents and the applicant should have directed his complaints against Weiterstadt prison.
The conflicting decision of the Darmstadt Regional Court was the result of wrong information from Weiterstadt prison.
The Schleswig-Holstein Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeals as inadmissible because the applicant had been transferred from Lübeck to Bruchsal prior to the filing of his appeals.
On 18 December 2017 the Darmstadt Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for interim measures to stop his envisaged transfer from Lübeck to Bruchsal and ultimately, after he had been transferred to Bruchsal, to be returned to Lübeck.
It found that the Weiterstadt prison authorities either no longer had the competence to take any decisions because the applicant’s transfer to Lübeck prison had to be considered a long-term transfer or - assuming that they still had the competence - they could not oblige Lübeck prison to detain the applicant because Lübeck was in another Land of Germany.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the conduct of the authorities prevented him from having access to court.
The domestic courts were either not given the opportunity to decide on the merits or they did not decide with the required swiftness.

Judgment