5.  The applicant is a Netherlands national who was born in 1968 and lives in Maastricht. 6.  On 4 November 2003, the applicant went to the home of one Ms E. and demanded that she give him an obituary card of her sister who had recently died. On being met with a refusal, he forced his way into Ms E.'s home, causing her to fall, and hit her over the head several times. He then made his way over to the sideboard, where he had noticed a stack of documents; of these, he took several – a magazine and some giro form stubs – before leaving. 7.  In the course of the subsequent criminal proceedings it emerged that the applicant was a pathological collector of devotional obituary cards for the recently deceased. Whenever possible – on the applicant's own admission, whenever he was not detained under civil or criminal law – the applicant would gatecrash funerals in the Maastricht area. He had met Ms E. at her sister's funeral, from which he had been turned away by the undertaker. At the time of his visit to Ms E.'s home, he had been under the mistaken impression that he had propitiated Ms E. by sending her a blessed candle beforehand. 8.  The applicant was taken into police custody the same day on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence. He remained in pre-trial detention pending the criminal proceedings that were subsequently brought against him and the order for his pre-trial detention was duly prolonged. 9.  Examinations of the applicant's mental state by two psychiatrists and a psychologist showed that the applicant was, at the time of the crime, suffering from a mental impairment. The report of the psychiatrists diagnosed it as “a paranoid form of schizophrenia in which autistiform characteristics are unusually prominent and ... an obsessive compulsive personality disorder”. Both the psychiatrists' report and that of the psychologist considered it very likely that the applicant would reoffend if given the chance. Both reports mentioned the applicant's lack of awareness of his condition, which made him difficult to treat. They concurred in recommending that the applicant undergo compulsory treatment in a closed setting. In addition, a psychologist attached to a mental hospital where the applicant had been held previously, under the Psychiatric Hospitals (Compulsory Admission) Act (Wet bijzondere opnemingen in psychiatrische ziekenhuizen; see paragraph 20 below), gave evidence in open court to the effect that the applicant had absconded before and would resist “all possible forms of interference in his personal life” if he could. 10.  On 18 May 2004 the criminal law section of the Maastricht Regional Court (rechtbank), following adversarial proceedings, convicted the applicant of theft preceded by violence and sentenced him to seven months' imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in pre-trial detention. Having found that the applicant was able to understand the unlawful nature of his acts but that on account of the limited development of his mental faculties he could only be held responsible for this offence to a limited degree whereas there was considerable danger of his reoffending, it further imposed a TBS order with confinement in a custodial clinic (terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege; “TBS order”). Referring to Article 72 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering), it further ordered the termination of the applicant's pre-trial detention as from the moment on which the duration of the pre-trial detention would be equal to the prison sentence imposed. Both the prosecution and the applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof). 11.  The applicant's lawyer further applied to the Court of Appeal for the applicant's immediate release from pre-trial detention on the ground that – as the applicant had already served the sentence imposed with deduction of the time spent in pre-trial detention – there was no legal basis for his further detention. The prosecution opposed this application, arguing that Article 72 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ruled out the termination of pre-trial detention in a case like the applicant's where a prison sentence is combined with a TBS order. 12.  On 3 June 2004, the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal held a hearing in camera and ordered the applicant's immediate release. On the same day, at the request of the public prosecutor, the civil law section of the Maastricht Regional Court issued an interim admission order (voorlopige machtiging) within the meaning of Article 2 of the Psychiatric Hospitals (Compulsory Admission) Act under the procedure set out in this Act. Consequently, after the applicant was released from pre-trial detention on 3 June 2004, he was compulsorily admitted to a psychiatric hospital in Vijverdal under the judicial interim admission order. He stayed there until 13 December 2004. 13.  On 1 December 2004 the applicant's appeal against the judgment of 18 May 2004 was heard by the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal, which on the same day issued a warrant for the applicant to be taken into pre-trial detention (gevangenneming) within the meaning of Article 75 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Pursuant to Article 75 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this order remained in force pending the total further duration of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 14.  By judgment of 15 December 2004, the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 18 May 2004 on technical grounds, convicted the applicant of theft preceded by violence, sentenced him to seven months' imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in pre-trial detention and imposed a TBS order with confinement in a custodial clinic. 15.  The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law (cassation) with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), which was dismissed on summary reasoning on 14 February 2006. Accordingly, the applicant's TBS order took effect on this date, replacing the pre-trial detention order of 1 December 2004 as the legal basis for the applicant's detention. However, the applicant was not directly transferred to a custodial clinic but was held in pre-placement detention until a suitable place would become available for him. 16.  By letter of 16 August 2006, the Minister of Justice informed the applicant that, given the Court's conclusion in the case of Brand v. the Netherlands, no. 49902/99, 11 May 2004, the Appeals Board (beroepscommissie) of the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Juvenile Protection (Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming) had found that financial compensation was appropriate in all cases where pre-placement detention after the end of a prison sentence had exceeded six months. Starting on the seventh month, this compensation amounted to 350 euros (EUR) per month and this amount was to be increased by EUR 125 every further trimester. The applicant was further informed that the total amount of compensation would be calculated and paid once he had been admitted to a custodial clinic. The applicant was invited to confirm within seven days whether he wished to avail himself of this compensation offer. This letter has remained unanswered by the applicant. 17.  On 20 March 2007 the applicant was admitted to a custodial clinic. On 30 August 2007, he was informed by the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) that, as his pre-placement detention had exceeded six months on 13 August 2006, he was offered compensation in a total amount of EUR 3,075 for the time spent in pre-placement detention between 13 August 2006 and 20 March 2007. 18.  On 5 September 2007, the applicant's parents informed the Minister of Justice – in reply to the letter of 30 August 2007 – that they disagreed with the manner of calculation and the amount of compensation. On 19 September 2007, the Deputy Minister of Justice replied that there were no reasons for her to reconsider her position in the matter. 19.  On 21 April 2008, the applicant's representatives informed the Court that the applicant's TBS order had been extended by two years.