Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85, 11978/86, 12009/86   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/1990,16173
EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85, 11978/86, 12009/86 (https://dejure.org/1990,16173)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.10.1990 - 11787/85, 11978/86, 12009/86 (https://dejure.org/1990,16173)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. Oktober 1990 - 11787/85, 11978/86, 12009/86 (https://dejure.org/1990,16173)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1990,16173) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    THYNNE, WILSON ET GUNNELL c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 34 MRK
    Violation de l'Art. 5-4 Violation de l'Art. 5-5 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention (französisch)

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    THYNNE, WILSON AND GUNNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 34 MRK
    Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

Papierfundstellen

  • Serie A Nr. 190-A
 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (73)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

  • EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

    WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85
    In addition to his right to make representations to the Parole Board under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (see paragraphs 56-59 above), a prisoner detained pursuant to a discretionary life sentence may take proceedings in the High Court to obtain the judicial review of any decision of the Parole Board or of the Home Secretary on the ground that it is tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety (see judgment of 2 March 1987 in the Weeks case, Series A no. 114, pp. 18-19, paras. 30-31).

    They maintained that they had received discretionary life sentences because, as in the Weeks case (judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, pp. 24-25, para. 46), the courts considered them to be mentally unstable and dangerous and that such a sentence would enable the Secretary of State to monitor their progress and decide when it was safe to release them.

    In subsequent cases the Court made it clear that this finding related only to "the initial decision depriving a person of his liberty" and did not purport "to deal with an ensuing period of detention in which new issues affecting the lawfulness of the detention might arise" (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Weeks judgment, Series A no. 114, p. 28, para. 56).

    1 (a) (art. 5-1-a) (see, inter alia, the Van Droogenbroeck judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, pp. 23-27, paras. 44-49, the above-mentioned Weeks judgment, Series A no. 114, pp. 28-29, paras. 55-59, and the E. v. Norway judgment of 29 August 1990, Series A no. 181-A, pp. 21-22, para. 50).

    Mr Weeks received a discretionary life sentence not because of the gravity of his offence but because of his dangerous and unstable personality and to enable the Home Secretary to monitor his progress and release him when he was no longer judged to represent a danger to the community (see Series A no. 114, especially at pp. 10-11, paras. 14-15).

    4 (art. 5-4) does not guarantee a right to judicial control of such scope as to empower the "court" on all aspects of the case, including questions of expediency, to substitute its own discretion for that of the decision-making authority; the review should, nevertheless, be wide enough to bear on those conditions which, according to the Convention, are essential for the lawful detention of a person subject to the special type of deprivation of liberty ordered against these three applicants (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Weeks judgment, Series A no. 114, p. 29, para. 59, and the above-mentioned E v. Norway judgment, Series A no. 181-A, pp. 21-22, para. 50).

  • EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

    VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85
    1 (a) (art. 5-1-a) (see, inter alia, the Van Droogenbroeck judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, pp. 23-27, paras. 44-49, the above-mentioned Weeks judgment, Series A no. 114, pp. 28-29, paras. 55-59, and the E. v. Norway judgment of 29 August 1990, Series A no. 181-A, pp. 21-22, para. 50).
  • EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

    X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85
    1 (e) (art. 5-1-e) where the reasons initially warranting detention may cease to exist the Court has held that "it would be contrary to the object and purpose of Article 5 (art. 5)... to interpret paragraph 4 (art. 5-4)... as making this category of confinement immune from subsequent review of lawfulness merely provided that the initial decision issued from a court..." (see the X v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, pp. 22-23, para. 52).
  • EGMR, 06.10.2005 - 74025/01

    HIRST c. ROYAUME-UNI (N° 2)

    In a case such as the present one, where Contracting States have adopted a number of different ways of addressing the question of the right of convicted prisoners to vote, the Court must confine itself to determining whether the restriction affecting all convicted prisoners in custody exceeds any acceptable margin of appreciation, leaving it to the legislature to decide on the choice of means for securing the rights guaranteed by Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 (see, for example, the cases concerning procedures governing the continued detention of life prisoners, where Court case-law and domestic legislation have evolved progressively: Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A; Singh v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1996, Reports 1996-I; and Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

    Mord an James Bulger

    Tel n'est toutefois pas le cas pour la détention ultérieure dans la mesure où des questions nouvelles de légalité la concernant surgiraient après coup (arrêts Weeks précité, p. 28, § 56, et Thynne, Wilson et Gunnell c. Royaume-Uni du 25 octobre 1990, série A n° 190-A, pp. 26-27, § 68).
  • EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94

    Mord an James Bulger

    Tel n'est toutefois pas le cas pour la détention ultérieure dans la mesure où des questions nouvelles de légalité la concernant surgiraient après coup (arrêts Weeks précité, p. 28, § 56, et Thynne, Wilson et Gunnell c. Royaume-Uni du 25 octobre 1990, série A n° 190-A, pp. 26-27, § 68).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht