Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HOOD c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 5-3 Non-violation de l'art. 5-4 Violation de l'art. 5-5 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 13 Violation de l'art. 6-1 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure nationale Remboursement partiel ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HOOD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3, Art. 13, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-3 No violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Not necessary to examine Art. 13 Violation of Art. 6-1 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings Costs and expenses partial ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 01.12.1997 - 27267/95
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95

Papierfundstellen

• NVwZ 2001, 304

Wird zitiert von ... (16)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 12.05.1992 - 13770/88

  MEGYERI c. ALLEMAGNE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95

  In these circumstances, the applicant has not demonstrated that he did not have available to him guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question (see, for example, the Megyeri v. Germany judgment of 12 May 1992, Series A no. 237-A, pp. 11-12, § 22).
• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95

  In this connection the Court recalls the procedural and substantive requirements of Article 5 § 3 obliging the "officer", inter alia, to hear himself the accused, to examine all the facts militating for and against pre-trial detention and to set out in the decision on detention the facts upon which that decision is based (see the Schiesser v. Switzerland judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13-14, § 31, and the Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, p. 18, § 35).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95

  Given the nature of the relevant charges and the penalty imposed, the applicant was arrested on reasonable suspicion of having committed an "offence" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) (see, for example, the De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, pp. 21-22, §§ 42-44).

 
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95

  In this connection the Court recalls the procedural and substantive requirements of Article 5 § 3 obliging the "officer", inter alia, to hear himself the accused, to examine all the facts militating for and against pre-trial detention and to set out in the decision on detention the facts upon which that decision is based (see the Schiesser v. Switzerland judgment of 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34, p. 13-14, § 31, and the Letellier v. France judgment of 26 June 1991, Series A no. 207, p. 18, § 35).
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

  HUBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95

  As to the applicant's substantive complaint about the commanding officer's impartiality in the context of the Rule 4 hearing, according to the case-law of the Convention bodies, if it appears at the time the decision on pre-trial detention is taken that the "officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power" is liable to intervene in the subsequent proceedings as a representative of the prosecuting authority, then he could not be regarded as independent of the parties at that preliminary stage as it is possible for him to become one of the parties at a later stage (see the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, §§ 42-43, and the Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, pp. 11-12, §§ 20-21).
• EGMR, 26.11.1992 - 13867/88

  BRINCAT v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95

  As to the applicant's substantive complaint about the commanding officer's impartiality in the context of the Rule 4 hearing, according to the case-law of the Convention bodies, if it appears at the time the decision on pre-trial detention is taken that the "officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power" is liable to intervene in the subsequent proceedings as a representative of the prosecuting authority, then he could not be regarded as independent of the parties at that preliminary stage as it is possible for him to become one of the parties at a later stage (see the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 18, §§ 42-43, and the Brincat v. Italy judgment of 26 November 1992, Series A no. 249-A, pp. 11-12, §§ 20-21).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 9626/81

  DUINHOF AND DUIJF v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95

  The Court further stressed, in its Duinhof and Duijf v. the Netherlands judgment, the importance of "formal, visible requirements stated in the "law"" as opposed to standard practices in determining whether a national procedure for deciding on the liberty of an individual satisfies the requirements of Article 5 § 3 (judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 79, pp. 15-16, § 34).

• EGMR, 19.02.2009 - 3455/05

  A. u. a. ./. Vereinigtes Königreich

  In addition, the Government submitted that no just satisfaction should be awarded in respect of any procedural violation found by the Court (for example, under Article 5 §§ 4 or 5), since it was not possible to speculate what would have happened had the breach not occurred (Kingsley v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 35605/97, ECHR 2002-IV; Hood v. the United Kingdom, no. 27267/95, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 19.10.2000 - 27785/95

  WLOCH v. POLAND

  44-45, § 9; the Huber v. Switzerland judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, p. 19, § 46; the Toth v. Austria judgment of 12 December 1991, Series A no. 224, p. 24, § 91; the Kampanis judgment cited above, p. 49, § 66; Hood v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27267/95, §§ 84-87, ECHR 1999-I; Nikolova v. Bulgaria cited above, § 76; and Niedbala v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 89, 4 July 2000, unreported).
• EGMR, 25.03.1999 - 31195/96

  NIKOLOVA c. BULGARIE

  44-45, § 9; the Huber judgment cited above, p. 19, § 46; the Toth judgment cited above., p. 24, § 91; the Kampanis judgment cited above, p. 49, § 66; and Hood v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27267/95, §§ 84-87, ECHR 1999-I).

 
• EGMR, 05.10.2004 - 45508/99

  H.L. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  44-45, § 9, Huber c. Suisse, 23 octobre 1990, série A no 188, p. 19, § 46, et Hood c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 27267/95, §§ 84-87, CEDH 1999-I).
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 48843/99

  COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  La Cour rappelle qu'elle a statué sur l'indépendance et l'impartialité des tribunaux militaires dans les arrêts Engel et autres et Findlay précités et certains arrêts ultérieurs (dont Coyne c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 24 septembre 1997, Recueil 1997-V, Hood c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 27267/95, CEDH 1999-I, et Cable et autres c. Royaume-Uni [GC], nos 24436/94 et suiv., 18 février 1999).
• EGMR, 26.02.2002 - 38784/97

  MORRIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Une privation de liberté aussi conséquente suppose à l'évidence une décision sur une «accusation en matière pénale» (arrêts Findlay précité, p. 279, § 69, Engel et autres c. Pays-Bas, 8 juin 1976, série A no 22, p. 36, § 85, et Hood c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 27267/95, CEDH 1999-I).
• EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 6232/09

  MADER c. SUISSE

  Article 5 § 4 serves, in particular, as the habeas corpus procedure of the Convention, meaning "a procedure whereby a detained person may make an urgent application for release from custody on the basis that his detention is unlawful" (see R v. Royal Army Service Corp. Colchester, ex parte Elliott [1949] 1 All England Law Reports at p. 373, cited in Hood v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27267/95, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 35605/97

  KINGSLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Having regard to all the circumstances, and in accordance with its normal practice in civil and criminal cases as regards violations of Article 6 § 1 caused by a lack of objective or structural independence and impartiality, the Court does not consider it appropriate to award financial compensation to the applicant in respect of loss of procedural opportunity or any distress, loss or damage allegedly flowing from the outcome of the domestic proceedings (see, inter alia, Hauschildt v. Denmark, judgment of 24 May 1989, Series A no. 154, p. 24, § 58; Langborger v. Sweden, judgment of 22 June 1989, Series A no. 155, p. 19, §§ 49 and 51; Demicoli v. Malta, judgment of 27 August 1991, Series A no. 210, p. 20, § 48; Holm v. Sweden, judgment of 25 November 1993, Series A no. 279-A, p. 17, § 36; Findlay v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I, p. 284, § 88; De Haan v. the Netherlands, judgment of 26 August 1997, Reports 1997-IV, p. 1394, §§ 59-60; Coyne v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 24 September 1997, Reports 1997-V, p. 1856, § 64; and Hood v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27267/95, § 86, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 22.06.2004 - 29687/96

  WESOLOWSKI c. POLOGNE

  44-45, § 9, Huber c. Suisse du 23 octobre 1990, série A no 188, p. 19, § 46, Toth c. Autriche du 12 décembre 1991, série A no 224, p. 24, § 91, Kampanis précité, p. 49, § 66, Hood c. Royaume-Uni [GC], no 27267/95, §§ 84-87, CEDH 1999-I, Nikolova précité, § 76, et Niedbala c. Pologne, no 27915/95, § 89, 4 juillet 2000).
• EGMR, 08.01.2008 - 55434/00

  BOYLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The applicant relied in particular on the Court's judgment in Hood v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27267/95, ECHR 1999-I.
• EGMR, 25.10.2005 - 55434/00

  BOYLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 13.07.2004 - 38668/97

  CISZEWSKI c. POLOGNE
• EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 32819/96

  CABALLERO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 36256/97

  THOMPSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 39360/98

  S.B.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 20.03.2001 - 36256/97

  THOMPSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM