Article 5 � 4: In the case of S.T.S. v. the Netherlands* the Court had noted that a former detainee might well have a legal interest in the determination of the lawfulness of his detention even after his release, for example, in relation to his �enforceable right to compensation�, so that by declaring his appeal on points of law inadmissible as having become devoid of interest, the Supreme Court had deprived the proceedings for deciding the lawfulness of his detention of effect, in breach of Article 5 � 4.
In the instant case, however, while it was true that the Supreme Court had declared the applicant�s claim inadmissible (as the order appealed against could no longer be overturned), it was not thereby prevented from ruling on the lawfulness of the applicant�s detention. Although it did not accept the applicant�s complaints as regards the legality of her detention, it did actually express itself in her favour on the complaint that she had not had a proper opportunity to argue her case against the delivery of an observation order as distinct from a provisional order. Had the applicant brought proceedings to obtain compensation for damage, the court seized of the case would have found the Supreme Court�s opinion impossible to ignore. Accordingly, the Supreme Court�s decision did not have the effect of depriving the applicant of a decision on the merits of her appeal on points of law. Nor was it established that the applicant had been prevented from enjoying the effects of that decision in so far as it was favourable to her position. S.T.S. distinguished.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
* S.T.S. v. the Netherlands, no. 277/05, 7 June 2011, Information Note no. 142.