Published on 10 June 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 621/24
Roland Helmut WOLFRUM
against Germany
lodged on 26 December 2023
communicated on 21 May 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
In 2013 the Bayreuth District Court ordered the applicant’s placement under guardianship after a court-appointed medical expert had attested an acute danger for the applicant’s life. In a second set of proceedings, it authorised the applicant’s placement in an addiction treatment facility upon the guardian’s initiative.
The applicant’s appeals against the decisions concerning the placement in the addiction treatment facility were of no avail. As to the decisions on the applicant’s placement under guardianship, the Federal Constitutional Court found that the Bayreuth Regional Court’s decision in the appeal proceedings had violated the applicant’s personality rights, notably because the Regional Court had not given the applicant a second oral hearing. In a declaratory decision, the Federal Court of Justice later found that the District Court’s initial decision concerning the guardianship had also breached the applicant’s rights because the report of the medical expert had only been handed over to him at the oral hearing.
In 2016 the applicant brought official liability proceedings for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages stating that his placement under guardianship – and by extension his placement in the addiction treatment facility – had been unlawful. The civil courts dismissed the claim for compensation stating, inter alia, that the decisions in the guardianship proceedings had not been unreasonable and the applicant had not shown a link of causality between the court decisions and the damages claimed.
The Federal Constitutional Court refused to admit the applicant’s constitutional complaint against these decisions. It found the applicant’s complaints about a violation of his personality rights to be inadmissible for lack of substantiation and the remaining complaints to be ill-founded. The Federal Constitutional Court found inter alia that official liability could only be established where a decision was both objectively and subjectively unreasonable. While a decision that had been found to be unconstitutional was, in general, also objectively unreasonable, the civil courts had sufficiently established that the procedural deficiencies in the guardianship proceedings had not been so severe as to render them subjectively unreasonable.
The applicant alleged a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, arguing that his placement in the addiction treatment facility had been unlawful because it had been ordered upon the guardian’s initiative and his placement under guardianship had been unlawful. The applicant further alleged a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention on account of his placement under guardianship. Lastly, he alleged a violation of Article 13 of the Convention because he had not been granted compensation in the official liability proceedings, even though the domestic courts had established earlier that his rights had been violated in the guardianship proceedings, as well as a violation of Article 5 § 5 of the Convention, arguing that his detention, which in his view had been in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, had to be compensated for.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s placement in the addiction treatment facility in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention because it had been ordered by the courts on the guardian’s initiative and there had been a violation of the applicant’s rights in the guardianship proceedings (see, for the general principles, Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, §§ 73-75, 9 July 2009)?
2. If the applicant was the victim of detention in contravention of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, did he have an effective compensatory remedy in respect of his complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Danija v. Switzerland (dec.), 1654/15, §§ 34 and 37, 28 April 2020)?
3. Has there been a breach of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s placement under guardianship? In particular, can the applicant still claim to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention in respect of the alleged violation, given the domestic courts’ finding that his rights had been breached in the guardianship proceedings? Was a monetary award required for the applicant to lose his victim status in respect of the alleged violation (see Roth v. Germany, nos. 6780/18 and 30776/18, §§ 75-78, 22 October 2020; Stollenwerk v. Germany, no. 8844/12, §§ 47-49, 7 September 2017)?
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Roth, cited above, §§ 90-98)?