Furthermore, there is anecdotal evidence that the judgment is already having a positive impact on practice, with public authorities keen to explore less restrictive care arrangements in order to avoid
a deprivation of liberty arising for disabled people in their care.
Consequently, taking into account the outcome
of the judgment pointed in para 57 clearly stating that «the answer to the question referred is that Article 26 (1)
of Framework Decision 2002/584 must be interpreted as meaning that measures such as a nine - hour night - time curfew, in conjunction with the monitoring
of the person concerned by means
of an electronic tag, an obligation to report to a police station at fixed times on a daily basis or several times a week, and a ban on applying for foreign travel documents, does not, in principle, have regard towards the type, duration, effects and manner
of implementation
of all those measures; it is restrictive as to give rise to a
deprivation of liberty comparable to that
arising from imprisonment and thus to be classified as «detention» within the meaning
of that provision, which it is nevertheless for the referring court to ascertain».