Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LLOYD AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41, Art. 6 Abs. 1+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6), Art. 5) MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 with regard to 26 applicants No violation of Art. 5-1 with regard to one applicant Violation of Art. 5-5 with regard to 26 applicants No violation of Art. 5-5 with regard to one applicant Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c Non-pecuniary damage - ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.10.2003 - 29798/96
• EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 29798/96, 30395/96, 34327/96, 34341/96, 35445/97, 36267/97, 36367/97, 37551/97, 37706/97, 38261/97, 39378/98, 41590/98, 41593/98, 42040/98, 42097/98, 45420/99, 45844/99, 46326/99, 47144/99, 53062/99, 53111/99, 54969/00, 54973/00, 54997/00, 55046/00, 55068

Wird zitiert von ... (6)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 26.11.1991 - 13585/88

  OBSERVER ET GUARDIAN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 29798/96

  Accordingly, the Court concludes that the legal costs and expenses for which the applicants claim reimbursement, pursuant to Article 41 of the Convention, cannot, in all cases, be considered to have been "necessarily" incurred or to be "reasonable as to quantum" (see the Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 26 November 1991, Series A no. 216, pp. 37-38, § 80).
• EGMR, 13.06.1994 - 10588/83

  BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 29798/96

  As regards the applicants" claims for pecuniary loss, the Court's case-law establishes that there must be a clear causal connection between the damage claimed by the applicant and the violation of the Convention found and that this may, in the appropriate case, include compensation in respect of loss of earnings (see, amongst other authorities, Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain (former Article 50), judgment of 13 June 1994, Series A no. 285-C, pp.
• EGMR, 09.04.1984 - 8966/80

  GODDI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.03.2005 - 29798/96

  As regards violations of Article 6, the Court's case-law indicates that it will not speculate as to what might have occurred had there been no breach of the procedural guarantees of this provision (Benham, § 68, and Findlay v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports 1997-I, §§ 84-88) unless it finds special features in the case amounting to a "real loss of opportunity" (Perks, §§ 80-81, and Goddi v. Italy, judgment of 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76, § 35).

• EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 57180/09

  BERNOBIC v. CROATIA

  In its more recent case-law, the Court, referring to a comparable distinction made under English law (compare Benham, cited above, §§ 43-46; and Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 and others, §§ 102, 105 et seq., 1 March 2005), further specified the circumstances under which the detention remained lawful in the said underlying period for the purposes of Article 5 § 1: For the assessment of compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention a basic distinction has to be made between ex facie invalid detention orders - for example, given by a court in excess of jurisdiction (see Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 78, 4 March 2008) or where the interested party did not have proper notice of the hearing (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 129; and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 79, 6 December 2007) - and detention orders which are prima facie valid and effective unless and until they have been overturned by a higher court (ibid.).

  In these circumstances, the Court considers that the procedural flaw in question did not amount to a "gross or obvious irregularity" in the exceptional sense indicated by the case-law (compare Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 et seq., § 114, 1 March 2005).

• EGMR, 01.07.2010 - 42998/08

  HADI v. CROATIA

  In its more recent case-law, the Court, referring to a comparable distinction made under English law (compare Benham, cited above, §§ 43-46; and Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 and others, §§ 102, 105 et seq., 1 March 2005), further specified the circumstances under which the detention remained lawful in the said underlying period for the purposes of Article 5 § 1: For the assessment of compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention a basic distinction has to be made between ex facie invalid detention orders - for example, given by a court in excess of jurisdiction (see Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 78, 4 March 2008) or where the interested party did not have proper notice of the hearing (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 129; and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 79, 6 December 2007) - and detention orders which are prima facie valid and effective unless and until they have been overturned by a higher court (ibid.).

  In these circumstances the Court considers that the procedural flaw in question did not amount to a "gross or obvious irregularity" in the exceptional sense indicated by the case-law (compare Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 et seq., § 114, 1 March 2005).

• EGMR, 01.07.2008 - 42250/02

  CALMANOVICI c. ROUMANIE

  Par ailleurs, après l'examen des moyens législatifs et juridictionnels mis à la disposition d'un requérant, la Cour a conclu au respect par les autorités de leurs obligations positives découlant du respect effectif de la vie privée dans une affaire où l'intéressé avait fait l'objet d'une surveillance visuelle, englobant également la prise de photos et d'images vidéo, de la part de détectives privées employés par une compagnie d'assurances (Verlière c. Suisse (déc.), no 41593/98, CEDH 2001-VII).

 
• EGMR, 20.10.2015 - 45175/08

  SARA c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Elle rappelle également que, se référant à une distinction comparable qui était faite en droit anglais (Benham c. Royaume-Uni, 10 juin 1996, §§ 43-46, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-III, Lloyd et autres c. Royaume-Uni, nos 29798/96 et autres, §§ 102, 105 et suivants, 1er mars 2005, et Mooren, précité, § 75), elle a précisé les circonstances dans lesquelles la détention conservait sa validité au regard de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention pendant la période considérée: pour l'appréciation du respect ou non de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention, une distinction fondamentale doit être établie entre les titres de placement en détention manifestement invalides - par exemple ceux émis par un tribunal en dehors de sa compétence (Lloyd, précité, §§ 108, 113 et 119) ou dans les cas où la partie intéressée n'a pas été dûment avertie de la date de l'audience (Khoudoyorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, § 129, CEDH 2005-X (extraits), et Liou c. Russie, no 42086/05, § 79, 6 décembre 2007) - et les titres de détention qui sont prima facie valides et efficaces tant qu'ils n'ont pas été annulés par une juridiction supérieure (idem).
• EGMR, 01.12.2009 - 3449/05

  HOKIC ET HRUSTIC c. ITALIE

  Pour déterminer si l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention a été respecté, il est opportun de faire une distinction fondamentale entre les titres de détention manifestement invalides - par exemple, ceux qui sont émis par un tribunal en dehors de sa compétence - et les titres de détention qui sont prima facie valides et efficaces jusqu'au moment où ils sont annulés par une autre juridiction interne (Benham précité, §§ 43 et 46 ; Lloyd et autres c. Royaume-Uni, nos 29798/96 et suivants, §§ 83, 108, 113 et 116, 1er mars 2005 ; Khudoyorov c. Russie, no 6847/02, §§ 128-129, 8 novembre 2005).
• EGMR, 05.01.2016 - 44925/06

  KLEYN v. RUSSIA

  In its more recent case-law, the Court, referring to a comparable distinction made under English law (compare Benham, cited above, §§ 43-46; and Lloyd and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 29798/96 and others, §§ 102, 105 et seq., 1 March 2005), further specified the circumstances under which the detention remained lawful in the said underlying period for the purposes of Article 5 § 1: For the assessment of compliance with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention a basic distinction has to be made between ex facie invalid detention orders - for example, given by a court in excess of jurisdiction (see Marturana v. Italy, no. 63154/00, § 78, 4 March 2008) or where the interested party did not have proper notice of the hearing (see Khudoyorov, cited above, § 129; and Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 79, 6 December 2007) - and detention orders which are prima facie valid and effective unless and until they have been overturned by a higher court (ibid.).