Article 5 ECHR: The Right to Liberty and Security and When Detention Is Allowed

Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to liberty and security, protects everyone against arbitrary deprivation of liberty. Unlike several other Convention rights, it has no general limitation clause in a second paragraph. Instead, the first paragraph sets out a closed list of situations in which a person may be detained, and the remaining paragraphs add procedural guarantees.

The desk · Reviewed 11 October 2026

What does Article 5 protect?

The opening sentence reads: "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person." No one may be deprived of liberty save in the listed cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.

Paragraphs 2 to 5 give those arrested or detained concrete rights. They must be informed promptly, in a language they understand, of the reasons for arrest. Anyone held on suspicion of an offence must be brought promptly before a judge, anyone detained may take proceedings to have the lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court, and a victim of unlawful detention has an enforceable right to compensation. Those held on suspicion are also entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, which may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

Which grounds for detention are permitted?

Paragraph 1 allows deprivation of liberty only in the following cases, always in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. The Court's guide stresses that these grounds are exhaustive and must be interpreted strictly, without the broader range of justifications found in Articles 8 to 11.

• lawful detention after conviction by a competent court
• arrest or detention for non-compliance with a court order or to secure an obligation prescribed by law
• arrest or detention on reasonable suspicion of an offence, or when reasonably considered necessary to prevent an offence or flight
• detention of a minor for educational supervision or to bring the minor before a competent authority
• detention to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, or of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics, drug addicts or vagrants
• arrest or detention to prevent unauthorised entry into the country, or in connection with deportation or extradition

How has the Court applied Article 5 to football crowds?

In Ostendorf v. Germany (7 March 2013) a football supporter was held in police custody for four hours to prevent him from organising and taking part in a brawl between hooligans. The Court found no violation, accepting the custody as detention to secure the fulfilment of a specific and concrete obligation prescribed by law, namely to refrain from arranging the brawl.

S., V. and A. v. Denmark (Grand Chamber, 22 October 2018) concerned three applicants detained for over seven hours in Copenhagen around a Denmark-Sweden match. The Court again found no violation. It held that the second part of Article 5 § 1 (c), detention when reasonably considered necessary to prevent an offence, can be a distinct ground outside criminal proceedings, and it noted that the national courts had examined the police strategy carefully.

What made preventive custody acceptable in the Danish case?

The Danish case shows that short preventive detention is not excluded, but the Court tied its approval to specific features: a time-limit under national law, dialogue with supporters before detention, detaining only those identified as a risk, and release as soon as the situation calmed. These details, rather than the football setting itself, drove the outcome.