Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOLLAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 11 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOLLAN contre le ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 11 MRK
  Irrecevable (französisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Neu Zitiert selbst (2)

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 42117/98

  The Convention here refers essentially to national law and lays down the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules of national law, but it requires in addition that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the aim of Article 5, namely to protect the individual from arbitrariness (see, amongst other authorities, Winterwerp v. the Netherlands judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, §§ 39 and 45, and Aerts v. Belgium judgment of 30 July 1998, Reports 1998-V, § 46).
• EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78

  ASHINGDANE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.05.2000 - 42117/98

  Furthermore there must be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention (see Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93, § 44).

• EGMR, 03.04.2001 - 27229/95

  KEENAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The decisive point is whether there were physical or mental indications which rendered or should have rendered the prison authorities aware that there was a risk of any acute or severe suffering as a result of the measure (see Bollan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42117/98, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 07.12.2021 - 29582/09

  YAKUT REPUBLICAN TRADE-UNION FEDERATION v. RUSSIA

  Firstly, it was incompatible with the Convention ratione materiae, as the Court's case-law denied inmates the freedom to associate and thus the freedom to form trade unions (Bollan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42117/98, ECHR 2000-V, and McFeeley et al.
• EGMR, 03.09.2013 - 22398/05

  ÜMIT BILGIÇ c. TURQUIE

  La Cour estime nécessaire de rechercher d'abord si le placement en établissement psychiatrique constitue une simple modification du lieu, du régime ou des conditions de la privation de liberté du requérant ordonnée dans le cadre de procédures pénales (Munjaz c. Royaume-Uni, no 2913/06, §§ 63-73, 17 juillet 2012) - questions qui ne relèvent pas de l'article 5 de la Convention mais qui pourraient tomber sous le coup des articles 3 et 8 de cet instrument (Bollan c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), no 42117/98, 4 mai 2000) - ou s'il constitue une nouvelle détention de nature à influer sur la conformité de la privation de liberté de l'intéressé avec les exigences de l'article 5 (Gouloub Atanassov c. Bulgarie, no 73281/01, § 67, 6 novembre 2008).

 
• EGMR, 17.07.2012 - 2913/06

  MUNJAZ v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In Bollan v United Kingdom, App No. 42117/98, the European Court of Human Rights, albeit in an admissibility decision, considered the point.
• EGMR, 15.09.2022 - 2809/18

  KAGANOVSKYY v. UKRAINE

  The Court will first establish whether the applicant's confinement in the KPRI unit between 27 June and 6 July 2017 constituted a modification of the conditions of an already existing "lawful detention" at the KPRI (if any) thus falling outside the scope of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention and falling instead under Article 3 (see Bollan v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42117/98, ECHR 2000-V, and Stoyan Krastev v. Bulgaria, no. 1009/12, § 38, 6 October 2020) or, if the applicant was not "lawfully detained" at the KPRI, whether the above-mentioned confinement in itself constituted a "deprivation of liberty" falling under Article 5 § 1.
• EGMR, 06.10.2020 - 1009/12

  STOYAN KRASTEV v. BULGARIA

  Generally, however, disciplinary steps, imposed formally or informally, which have effects on conditions of detention within a prison, cannot be considered to constitute deprivation of liberty (see Bollan v. United Kingdom (dec.), no. 42117/98, ECHR 2000-V).
• EGMR, 31.03.2005 - 63062/00

  SCHNEITER c. SUISSE

  Il invoque à cet égard l'affaire Bollan c. Royaume-Uni ((déc.), no 42117/98, CEDH 2000-V), ayant eu trait aux mesures disciplinaires dans l'exécution des peines de détention.