The applicant was taken into police custody and placed in a sobering cell for several hours after his father called police concerned about suicidal statements. He claims his rights under Article 5(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights were violated. Specifically: 1) His deprivation of liberty lacked a proper legal basis under German law, as the court cited the wrong legal provision to justify holding him. 2) Even if another legal basis could apply, the requirements for that basis were not met based on the facts of his case. 3) Being held for several hours in a police sobering cell was not a suitable means to address his situation, given his reported consumption of prescribed medication and low blood alcohol level. Pro

1. ENG - 2018/1
Application Form
About this application form
This form is a formal legal document and may affect your rights
and obligations. Please follow the instructions given in the “Notes
for filling in the application form”. Make sure you fill in all the
fields applicable to your situation and provide all relevant
documents.
Warning: If your application is incomplete, it will not be accepted
(see Rule 47 of the Rules of Court). Please note in particular that
Rule 47 § 2 (a) requires that a concise statement of facts,
complaints and information about compliance with the
admissibility criteria MUST be on the relevant parts of the
application form itself. The completed form should enable the
Court to determine the nature and scope of the application
without recourse to any other submissions.
Barcode label
If you have already received a sheet of barcode labels from the
European Court of Human Rights, please place one barcode label
in the box below.
Reference number
If you already have a reference number from the Court in
relation to these complaints, please indicate it in the box below.
A. The applicant
A.1. Individual
This section refers to applicants who are individual persons only.
If the applicant is an organisation, please go to section A.2.
1. Surname
2. First name(s)
5. Nationality
6. Address
7. Telephone (including international dialling code)
8. Email (if any)
Pfefferle
Andreas Marcus
2 3 1 0 1 9 6 5 e.g. 31/12/1960
3. Date of birth
D D M M Y Y Y Y
Karlsruhe
German
Im Eichbäumle 18, 76139 Karlsruhe
0049-(0)176-42679497
andreas.pfefferle@gmail.com
9. Sex male female
●
4. Place of birth
A.2. Organisation
This section should only be filled in where the applicant is a
company, NGO, association or other legal entity. In this case,
please also fill in section D.1.
10. Name
11. Identification number (if any)
14. Registered address
15. Telephone (including international dialling code)
16. Email
12. Date of registration or incorporation (if any)
e.g. 27/09/2012
D D M M Y Y Y Y
13. Activity

2. 2 / 13
European Court of Human Rights - Application form
B. State(s) against which the application is directed
17. Tick the name(s) of the State(s) against which the application is directed.
ALB - Albania
AND - Andorra
ARM - Armenia
AUT - Austria
AZE - Azerbaijan
BEL - Belgium
BGR - Bulgaria
BIH - Bosnia and Herzegovina
CHE - Switzerland
CYP - Cyprus
CZE - Czech Republic
DEU - Germany
DNK - Denmark
ESP - Spain
EST - Estonia
FIN - Finland
FRA - France
GBR - United Kingdom
GEO - Georgia
GRC - Greece
HRV - Croatia
HUN - Hungary
IRL - Ireland
ISL - Iceland
✖
ITA - Italy
LIE - Liechtenstein
LTU - Lithuania
LUX - Luxembourg
LVA - Latvia
MCO - Monaco
MDA - Republic of Moldova
MKD - North Macedonia
MLT - Malta
MNE - Montenegro
NLD - Netherlands
NOR - Norway
POL - Poland
PRT - Portugal
ROU - Romania
RUS - Russian Federation
SMR - San Marino
SRB - Serbia
SVK - Slovak Republic
SVN - Slovenia
SWE - Sweden
TUR - Turkey
UKR - Ukraine

3. 3 / 13
European Court of Human Rights - Application form
C. Representative(s) of the individual applicant
An individual applicant does not have to be represented by a lawyer at this stage. If the applicant is not represented please go to
section E.
Where the application is lodged on behalf of an individual applicant by a non-lawyer (e.g. a relative, friend or guardian), the non-
lawyer must fill in section C.1; if it is lodged by a lawyer, the lawyer must fill in section C.2. In both situations section C.3 must be
completed.
C.1. Non-lawyer
18. Capacity/relationship/function
19. Surname
20. First name(s)
21. Nationality
22. Address
23. Telephone (including international dialling code)
24. Fax
25. Email
C.2. Lawyer
26. Surname
27. First name(s)
28. Nationality
29. Address
30. Telephone (including international dialling code)
31. Fax
Dr. Schneider-Addae-Mensah
David
German
Kantstraße 4, D-76137 Karlsruhe
0049-0721-84086212
0049-0721-84086214
addaeme@gmx.de
32. Email
C.3. Authority
The applicant must authorise any representative to act on his or her behalf by signing the first box below; the designated
representative must indicate his or her acceptance by signing the second box below.
I hereby authorise the person indicated above to represent me in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights
concerning my application lodged under Article 34 of the Convention.
33. Signature of applicant 34. Date
2 3 1 0 2 0 1 8 e.g. 27/09/2015
D D M M Y Y Y Y
I hereby agree to represent the applicant in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights concerning the application
lodged under Article 34 of the Convention.
35. Signature of representative 36. Date
2 2 1 0 2 0 1 8 e.g. 27/09/2015
D D M M Y Y Y Y
Electronic communication between the representative and the Court
37. Email address for eComms account (if the representative already uses eComms, please provide the existing eComms account email
address)
By completing this field you agree to using the eComms system.

4. 4 / 13
European Court of Human Rights - Application form
D. Representative(s) of the applicant organisation
Where the applicant is an organisation, it must be represented before the Court by a person entitled to act on its behalf and in its
name (e.g. a duly authorised director or official). The details of the representative must be set out in section D.1.
If the representative instructs a lawyer to plead on behalf of the organisation, both D.2 and D.3 must be completed.
D.1. Organisation official
38. Capacity/relationship/function (please provide proof)
39. Surname
40. First name(s)
41. Nationality
42. Address
43. Telephone (including international dialling code)
44. Fax
45. Email
D.2. Lawyer
46. Surname
47. First name(s)
48. Nationality
49. Address
50. Telephone (including international dialling code)
51. Fax
52. Email
D.3. Authority
The representative of the applicant organisation must authorise any lawyer to act on its behalf by signing the first box below; the
lawyer must indicate his or her acceptance by signing the second box below.
I hereby authorise the person indicated in section D.2 above to represent the organisation in the proceedings before the European
Court of Human Rights concerning the application lodged under Article 34 of the Convention.
53. Signature of organisation official 54. Date
e.g. 27/09/2015
D D M M Y Y Y Y
I hereby agree to represent the organisation in the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights concerning the application
lodged under Article 34 of the Convention.
55. Signature of lawyer 56. Date
e.g. 27/09/2015
D D M M Y Y Y Y
Electronic communication between the representative and the Court
57. Email address for eComms account (if the representative already uses eComms, please provide the existing eComms account email
address)
By completing this field you agree to using the eComms system.

5. 5 / 13
European Court of Human Rights - Application form
Subject matter of the application
All the information concerning the facts, complaints and compliance with the requirements of exhaustion of domestic remedies and
the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention must be set out in this part of the application form (sections E,
F and G). It is not acceptable to leave these sections blank or simply to refer to attached sheets. See Rule 47 § 2 and the Practice
Direction on the Institution of proceedings as well as the “Notes for filling in the application form”.
E. Statement of the facts
58.
The complainant was removed in handcuffs tied to his back like a criminal on 08/26/2016 at 4.00 a.m. by the Karlsruhe
police although he was in no way aggressive, posed no threat to public safety and had not committed any crime.
He was then taken to a so-called sobering cell at a police station. There he had to stay for several hours without water and
food until about 12.00 noon. The officers on duty refused to allow him to drink coffee or smoke a cigarette. The police
officers on duty also denied him the right to speak with a lawyer, pointing out that he had no rights. The examination by a
police doctor on contract was exhausted by the fact that he looked into his underpants at the back and front.
After his release from the sobering cell, in which the complainant had spent almost eight hours without any reason and
without water and bread, it was his wish to be released and to go home. This wish was ignored. Instead, the complainant
was taken by the police to the Karlsruhe Municipal Hospital, ward P 20, where he spent several days voluntarily and was
finally discharged at his own request on 08/30/2016.
The reason for the arrest of the complainant was a phone call from his father to the police, who had stated that the
complainant wanted to commit suicide. It is true that the complainant told his father on the night in question that he
wanted to kill himself. At that time, the complainant was under psycho-pharmacological influence because he had taken a
regular psycho-pharmacological medication prescribed to him. In addition, a police blood alcohol test in the night from
08/25/2016 to 08/26/2016 revealed a blood alcohol concentration of 0.3 ‰ (cf. resolution of the District Court of
Karlsruhe of 08/26/2016 on file no. 710 XIV 777/16 L (copy), Annex A 1).
Against this decision, which was delivered to him on 12/29/2016, he lodged a complaint in due form and time. Therein he
complained of a violation of his fundamental right to liberty (cf. statement of 01/29/2017 (copy), Annex A 1).
The complaint has not been remedied (cf. no remedy decision of the District Court of Karlsruhe of 01/30/2017 (copy),
Annex A 3).
By the order of 07/03/2017, which is challenged here, the Regional Court of Karlsruhe dismissed the complaint and
essentially stated that the challenged order was formally and materially lawful, especially since the state had an obligation
to protect the life of the individual even against his will. The transfer to a sobering cell at the police station had been
indicated because of a mixed consumption of psychotropic drugs and minor quantities of alcohol (cf. decision of the
Regional Court of Karlsruhe of 07/03/2017 to case no. 11 T 52/17 (copy), Annex A 4).
The complainant lodged a constitutional complaint in due form and time with the Federal Constitutional Court against the
decision of the Regional Court of Karlsruhe of 07/03/2017 (cf. pleading of 10 August 2017, copy, Annex A 5). This was not
accepted for decision without justification (see order of the Federal Constitutional Court of 09/21/2018, 2 BvR 1802/17,
copy, Annex A 6).
The present human rights complaint is directed against this.

6. 6 / 13
European Court of Human Rights - Application form
Statement of the facts (continued)
59.

7. European Court of Human Rights - Application form 7 / 13
- Please ensure that the information you include here does not exceed the pages allotted -
Statement of the facts (continued)
60.

8. 8 / 13
European Court of Human Rights - Application form
Article 5 ¶ 1 e)
"Everyone has the right to liberty
and security. Freedom may be
deprived only in the following
cases and in the manner
prescribed by law:
(e) the lawful deprivation of
liberty for the purpose of
preventing the spread of
infectious diseases, as well as for
the mentally ill, alcoholics, drug
addicts and vagrants;"
I. German legal bases:
Article 2 ¶ 2 sentence 2 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany:
"The freedom of the person is inviolable."
§ 28 ¶ 1 no. 2 b) Police Act Baden-Württemberg:
"The police may take a person into custody if
[... ] custody is necessary for a person's own protection against imminent danger to life
or limb and the person [... ]
(b) is recognizably in a condition excluding free will or otherwise in a helpless situation,
or
c) wants to commit suicide;"
§ 28 ¶3 sentence 2 Police Act Baden-Württemberg:
"A judicial decision on detention shall be taken immediately. It is not necessary to
obtain a judicial decision if it can be assumed that the decision would be made only
after the reason for the detention ceases to exist."
II. Lack of material legality of custody
Material legality under German law is lacking simply because the district court based
the deprivation of liberty on the wrong legal basis. For the prerequisites of that legal
basis must be fulfilled. It is irrelevant that, in addition, the requirements of another legal
basis may exist, but on which the measure is not based. The district court did not
assume here that the suicide threats of the complainant were the reason for his
detention but his "helpless situation". The decision was thus based on § 28 ¶ 1 no. 2 b)
Police Act Baden-Württemberg. However, it must be clear to the person concerned why
he is being imprisoned. However, the prerequisites of § 28 ¶ 1 no. 2 b) Police Act
Baden-Württemberg are not fulfilled and therefore do not constitute a sufficient
justification for the encroachment upon the complainant's right to freedom which is the
subject of the present complaint. The consumption of alcohol, especially in the small
quantity that was present in the person concerned, is socially adequate and does not
constitute a "helpless situation". Even a drunken stupor would not do this. The
consumption of prescribed drugs, even psychotropic ones, cannot have led to a helpless
situation unless there was a medical malpractice, which the complainant does not
claim. Given the small amount of a blood alcohol concentration of 0.3 or 0.35 ‰, there
can be no question of real "mixed consumption". Moreover, such "mixed consumption"
did not constitute a "helpless situation".
Self-damage is a right (see BVerfG, resolution of 03/23/2011 on Ref. 2 BvR 882/09, ref.
no. 29, 48 m.w.N.), as is the right to death (see BVerfG, resolution of 03/23/2011 on ref.
no. 2 BvR 882/09, ref. no. 29, 48 m.w.N.). ECHR, Pretty ./. United Kingdom, judgment of
04/29/2002, 2346/02, ref. 61-67, NJW 2002, 2851; ECHR, Haas ./. Switzerland, judgment
of 01/20/2011, 31322/07, ref. 51 et seq, 62, 67, NJW, 2011, 3773) .
In the alternative, police custody was not suitable to end the "helpless situation". A
"sobering cell" may be an option for heavily alcoholized persons, but not for psychiatric
drug users or only slightly alcoholized persons, or both. If there had been indications of
the use of psychotropic drugs, but also of a possible mixed use, an immediate
presentation to the nearest psychiatry would therefore have been necessary in order to
clarify whether there is actually a danger for the person concerned due to the
psychotropic substances taken. An eight-hour sobering of a blood alcohol concentration
of 0.35 ‰ in a police cell was obviously inappropriate and violated all rules of medical
art. It does not even become clear why a person - also more drunk - who was obviously
under the influence of psychotropic drugs, could not have been treated better in a
F. Statement of alleged violation(s) of the Convention and/or Protocols and relevant arguments
61. Article invoked Explanation

9. European Court of Human Rights - Application form 9 / 13
- Please ensure that the information you include here does not exceed the pages allotted -
hospital than in a police cell. There is therefore no "non-admission" at all. Otherwise, an
independent medical certificate is not available. The doctor on contract with the police
was not an independent doctor. In addition, a certificate is not available even from him.
According to the so-called Winterwerp criteria, a reliable medical certificate must be
available for the accommodation of mentally ill persons, the accommodation must be
necessary and not last longer than necessary (see ECHR, Winterwerp ./. NL, judgment of
10/24/1979).
In the present case there is neither such a clear testimony nor has the complainant
been taken into custody at all due to a mental disorder. Rather, this was due to a
consumption of substances. He is also not addicted to alcohol, "addicted to drugs" or a
"hobo", so that the conditions for his deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ¶ 1 e) ECHR
are not fulfilled in the present case. In the alternative, however, only a deprivation of
liberty of a mentally ill person in a hospital equipped for this purpose in accordance
with lit. e) would be justifiable, not in a completely unsuitable police cell.
III. Lack of formal legality of detention
The telephone hearing of the complainant by a judicial on-call service was, as has
already been explained, insufficient. It remains to be seen whether the law explicitly
provides for the person concerned to be given a personal impression or not. In any case,
it is indispensable under human rights law. Otherwise, the door would be open to
arbitrariness and police statehood. A judge may not rely in this respect on the
submission of policemen or police physicians but must make himself a picture of the
person concerned. With such an intensive encroachment on fundamental rights as the
imprisonment in a small cell, which can be described as psycho torture, and during
which a person imprisoned can get into a life-threatening physical and mental state, it is
indispensable not only to get an impression by telephone but also to look at the
gestures, facial expressions and appearance of the person concerned personally. For it
cannot be ruled out that otherwise disagreeable citizens would simply be locked away
by police officers, but that a judge would have personally formed a completely different
picture of the person concerned. Such a situation poses a considerable threat to
internal security. Finally, it is also irrelevant that a judicial on-call service is allegedly not
established in the District Court of Karlsruhe. On the one hand, this contradicts the
challenged decision of the district court, which is expressly surtitled "District Court of
Karlsruhe on-call service", on the other hand, the non-establishment of a necessary
service does not constitute a justification for a significant legal encroachment, such as a
deprivation of liberty. In this respect, the state is obliged to provide personnel and
infrastructure in order to safeguard the fundamental rights of its citizens. Otherwise, it
is an organizational fault of the state which, however, cannot justify an encroachment
upon an essential right such as the freedom of a human being.
Statement of alleged violation(s) of the Convention and/or Protocols and relevant arguments (continued)
62. Article invoked Explanation

10. European Court of Human Rights - Application form
- Please ensure that the information you include here does not exceed the page allotted -
10 / 13
I. Appeals lodged
- Complaint of 01/29/2017 against the order of the local court Karlsruhe of 08/26/2016
- Constitutional complaint against the decision of the regional court Karlsruhe of
07/03/2017
II. Last national decision
Order of the Federal Constitutional Court of 09/21/2018
G. Compliance with admisibility criteria laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention
For each complaint, please confirm that you have used the available effective remedies in the country concerned, including appeals,
and also indicate the date when the final decision at domestic level was delivered and received, to show that you have complied with
the six-month time-limit.
63. Complaint Information about remedies used and the date of the final decision

11. 11 / 13
European Court of Human Rights - Application form
64. Is or was there an appeal or remedy available to you which you have not used? Yes
No
●
65. If you answered Yes above, please state which appeal or remedy you have not used and explain why not
H. Information concerning other international proceedings (if any)
66. Have you raised any of these complaints in another procedure of international investigation or
settlement?
Yes
No
●
67. If you answered Yes above, please give a concise summary of the procedure (complaints submitted, name of the international body
and date and nature of any decisions given)
68. Do you (the applicant) currently have, or have you previously had, any other applications before the
Court?
Yes
No
●
69. If you answered Yes above, please write the relevant application number(s) in the box below

12. 12 / 13
European Court of Human Rights - Application form
I. List of accompanying documents
You should enclose full and legible copies of all documents. No documents will be returned to you. It is thus in your interests to
submit copies, not originals. You MUST:
- arrange the documents in order by date and by procedure;
- number the pages consecutively; and
- NOT staple, bind or tape the documents.
70. In the box below, please list the documents in chronological order with a concise description. Indicate the page number at which
each document may be found
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
Order of the District Court of Karlsruhe dated 08/26/2016 regarding Case No. 710 XIV 777 /16 L, Annex A 1 5
Pleading of 01/29/2017, Annex A 2 5
No remedy decision of the District Court of Karlsruhe of 01/30/2017, Annex A 3 5
Decision of the Regional Court of Karlsruhe dated 07/03/2017 regarding file number 11 T 52/17, Annex A 4 5
Pleading of 08/10/2017, Annex A 5 5
Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 09/21/2018, 2 BvR 1802/17, Annex A 6 5
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.
p.

13. 13 / 13
European Court of Human Rights - Application form
Any other comments
Do you have any other comments about your application?
71. Comments
Declaration and signature
I hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information I have given in the present application form is correct.
72. Date
1 8 0 1 2 0 1 9 e.g. 27/09/2015
D D M M Y Y Y Y
The applicant(s) or the applicant’s representative(s) must sign in the box below.
73. Signature(s) Applicant(s) Representative(s) - tick as appropriate
●
Confirmation of correspondent
If there is more than one applicant or more than one representative, please give the name and address of the one person with whom
the Court will correspond. Where the applicant is represented, the Court will correspond only with the representative (lawyer or non-
lawyer).
74. Name and address of Applicant Representative - tick as appropriate
The completed application form should be
signed and sent by post to:
The Registrar
European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe
67075 STRASBOURG CEDEX
FRANCE
893669e1-66ca-4653-b9e0-2de2561a694b