Volltextveröffentlichungen (4)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)

  Art. 41, Art. 39 MRK
  Frais et dépens - radiation du rôle (règlement amiable) Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WEEKS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (ARTICLE 50)

  Art. 41, Art. 39 MRK
  Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)

• eugrz.info

  Weeks gegen Vereinigtes Königreich

  Ergebnis: Gerichtshof billigt die gütliche Einigung zwischen Regierung und Bf. im Hinblick auf Kosten und Auslagen und streicht den Fall insoweit im Register. // Pauschalsumme als Entschädigung für materiellen und immateriellen Schaden zugesprochen. // Der, bereits einen ...

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 17.01.1984 - 9787/82
• EGMR, 26.05.1986 - 9787/82
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82
• EGMR, 05.10.1988 - 9787/82

Wird zitiert von ... (26)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.1988 - 9787/82

  (Zusammenfassung) [1.-7.] In seinem Hauptsache-Urteil vom 2. März 1987 (EGMR-E 3, 393) hat der Gerichtshof eine Verletzung von Art. 5 Abs. 4 der Konvention insofern festgestellt, als unter den besonderen Umständen des vorliegenden Falles sowohl das Verfahren vor dem Bewährungsrat (Parole Board) als auch die Möglichkeit einer Überprüfung der Freiheitsentziehung des Bf. vor den ordentlichen Gerichten den Anforderungen des Art. 5 Abs. 4 nicht genügten (Série A Nr. 114, Ziff. 54-70 der Entscheidungsgründe und Ziff. 2 der Entscheidungsformel, S. 27-33 und 34, EGMR-E 3, 404-409 und 410).

  Zum Sachverhalt bezieht sich der Gerichtshof auf Ziff. 10-31 des Hauptsache-Urteils (ebd., S. 10-19, EGMR-E 3, 393 ff.).

  Demzufolge ist der Bf., der sich nach wie vor in Freiheit befindet (siehe Hauptsache-Urteil, S. 14, Ziff. 23 a.E., EGMR-E 3, 393 ff.), nicht mehr den Bedingungen unterworfen, die mit der bedingten Entlassung eines zu lebenslanger Freiheitsstrafe Verurteilten verbunden sind, und kann nicht mehr erneut in ein Gefängnis eingewiesen werden.

  15. Bei der Festsetzung des als Entschädigung zuzuerkennenden Betrags sind die besonderen Gegebenheiten dieses Falles zu berücksichtigen, insbesondere die Strenge der "unbegrenzten" lebenslangen Strafe in Relation zu der begangenen Straftat (s. das Urteil in der Hauptsache, S. 10-11, Ziff. 11-15, EGMR-E 3, 393 f.).

• EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK c. BELGIQUE (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.1988 - 9787/82

  Somit ist im Hinblick auf die bedauerlichen Konsequenzen, die der umstrittenen Freiheitsentziehung als solcher zuzuschreiben sind, keinerlei Entschädigung fällig; der einzige Schaden, der im Hinblick auf eine gerechte Entschädigung gem. Art. 50 in Betracht gezogen werden kann, ist der durch das Fehlen eines die Anforderungen des Art. 5 Abs. 4 erfüllenden Rechtsbehelfs verursachte (s. das Urteil X. gegen Vereinigtes Königreich vom 18. Oktober 1982, Série A Nr. 55, S. 16, Ziff. 17, EGMR-E 2, 49; das Urteil Van Droogenbroeck vom 25. April 1983, Série A Nr. 63, S. 6, Ziff. 11, EGMR-E 2, 102 f.; und das Urteil Luberti vom 23. Februar 1984, Série A Nr. 75, S. 18, Ziff. 40, EGMR-E 2, 364 f.).
• EGMR, 23.02.1984 - 9019/80

  LUBERTI v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.1988 - 9787/82

  Somit ist im Hinblick auf die bedauerlichen Konsequenzen, die der umstrittenen Freiheitsentziehung als solcher zuzuschreiben sind, keinerlei Entschädigung fällig; der einzige Schaden, der im Hinblick auf eine gerechte Entschädigung gem. Art. 50 in Betracht gezogen werden kann, ist der durch das Fehlen eines die Anforderungen des Art. 5 Abs. 4 erfüllenden Rechtsbehelfs verursachte (s. das Urteil X. gegen Vereinigtes Königreich vom 18. Oktober 1982, Série A Nr. 55, S. 16, Ziff. 17, EGMR-E 2, 49; das Urteil Van Droogenbroeck vom 25. April 1983, Série A Nr. 63, S. 6, Ziff. 11, EGMR-E 2, 102 f.; und das Urteil Luberti vom 23. Februar 1984, Série A Nr. 75, S. 18, Ziff. 40, EGMR-E 2, 364 f.).
• EGMR, 02.06.1986 - 8658/79

  BÖNISCH v. AUSTRIA (ARTICLE 50)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 05.10.1988 - 9787/82

  Demzufolge kann gesagt werden, dass der Bf. wegen des Fehlens eines derartigen Rechtsbehelfs einen Verlust an Möglichkeiten (une perte de chances / a loss of opportunities) erlitten hat, selbst wenn die Perspektive der Realisierung dieser Möglichkeiten unter Berücksichtigung seiner wiederkehrenden Verhaltensprobleme zweifelhaft sein mag (Urteil Bönisch vom 2. Juni 1986, Série A Nr. 103, S. 8, Ziff. 11, EGMR-E 3, 60).

• EGMR, 12.05.2005 - 46221/99

  Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit (Freiheit der Person; rechtmäßige …

  Such automatic expedited judicial scrutiny provides an important measure of protection against arbitrary behaviour, incommunicado detention and ill-treatment (see, among other authorities, Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 26 May 1993, Series A no. 258-B, pp. 55-56, §§ 62-63; Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 49, ECHR 1999?III; Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145?B, pp. 31-32, § 58; and Dikme v. Turkey , no. 20869/92, § 66, ECHR 2000?VIII).

  "106.  The Court has already noted on a number of occasions that the investigation of terrorist offences undoubtedly presents the authorities with special problems ( Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom , 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, p. 33, § 61; Murray v. the United Kingdom , 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-A, p. 27, § 58; and Aksoy v. Turkey, cited above, p. 2282, § 78).

• EGMR, 25.05.1993 - 14553/89

  BRANNIGAN ET McBRIDE c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Issues akin to those arising in the present case were examined by the Court in its Brogan and Others judgment of 29 November 1988 (Series A no. 145-B) where it held that there had been a violation of Article 5 para.

  5 (art. 5-5) in the case of each applicant (Series A no. 145-B, pp. 30-35, paras. 55-62 and 66-67).

  The applicants, Mr Brannigan and Mr McBride, were detained under section 12 (1) (b) of the 1984 Act in early January 1989 very shortly after the Government's derogation of 23 December 1988 under Article 15 (art. 15) of the Convention, which itself was made soon after the Court's judgment of 29 November 1988 in the case of Brogan and Others (judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B).

  The Court recalls that judicial control of interferences by the executive with the individual's right to liberty provided for by Article 5 (art. 5) is implied by one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society, namely the rule of law (see the above-mentioned Brogan and Others judgment, Series A no. 145-B, p. 32, para. 58).

  Moreover, these special difficulties were recognised in its above-mentioned Brogan and Others judgment (see Series A no. 145-B, p. 33, para. 61).

  There is no dispute that this remedy was open to the applicants had they or their legal advisers chosen to avail themselves of it and that it provides an important measure of protection against arbitrary detention (see the above-mentioned Brogan and Others judgment, Series A no. 145-B, pp. 34-35, paras. 63-65).

  4 (art. 5-4) of the Convention (Series A no. 145-B, pp. 34-35, paras. 63-65).

  It was therefore competent to examine whether the derogation from the guarantees of Article 5 (art. 5), following a judgment of the European Court finding on similar facts a violation of that Article (art. 5) (Case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B) was indeed in conformity with Article 15 (art. 15) (see the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25).

  The position I have taken in the case of Brogan and Others (Series A no. 145-B) - a position which I still maintain - explains why I have voted for finding that the derogation lodged by the United Kingdom satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15) of the Convention: in this respect I would compare what I have said in paragraph 12 of my dissenting opinion in the case of Brogan and Others with paragraphs 60-67 of the present judgment.

  [ï?ª]ï?ª Series A no. 145, p. 32, para.

• EGMR, 16.06.2005 - 61603/00

  Konventionskonforme Auslegung des deutschen (Zivil-)Rechts …

  Der Gerichtshof erinnert daran, dass Artikel 5 Abs. 5 der Konvention einen unmittelbaren Entschädigungsanspruch bewirkt, sofern die nationalen Gerichte oder die Konventionsorgane festgestellt haben, dass einem Beschwerdeführer unter Verletzung von Artikel 5 Absätze 1 bis 4 der Konvention die Freiheit entzogen worden war (siehe u. a. Rechtssache Brogan und andere ./. Vereinigtes Königreich , Urteil vom 29. November 1988, Serie A, Bd. 145, S. 35, Nr. 67).

 
• EGMR, 27.09.1990 - 12535/86

  WASSINK v. THE NETHERLANDS

  This finding is without prejudice to the Court's competence under Article 50 (art. 50) in the matter of awarding compensation by way of just satisfaction (see the Brogan and Others judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, p. 35, § 67).

  The notion of "lawfulness" under paragraph 1 (art. 5-1) has the same meaning as in paragraph 4 (art. 5-4) (see notably the Brogan and Others judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145, pp.

• EGMR, 10.07.2001 - 41571/98

  MARSHALL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In its Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment (29 November 1988, Series A no. 145), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in the case of all four applicants, who had been detained under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984, which was the predecessor provision of section 14 of the 1989 Act.

  In the applicant's submission, the respondent Government cannot rely on the derogation to this safeguard which they introduced on 23 December 1988 following the Court's judgment in the Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom case (29 November 1988, Series A no. 145), since the derogation must be considered incompatible with Article 15 of the Convention, having regard to the radical transformation in the security situation in Northern Ireland at the material time.

• EGMR, 27.04.1999 - 30280/96

  JORDAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court recalls that Article 5 § 4 requires the availability of a remedy allowing a competent court to examine not only compliance with the applicable domestic rules but also the reasonableness of the suspicion grounding arrest and the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by that arrest and the on-going detention (Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145, pp.

  However, the Court considers that in view of the finding that there was no violation of Article 5 § 4 in the present case, it is not necessary to inquire whether the less strict requirements of Article 13 of the Convention were complied with (Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145, p. 36, § 68).

• EGMR, 14.03.2000 - 37555/97

  O'HARA v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  They note that the applicant's arrest and detention took place before the Court's judgment in the case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145) and that on 23 December 1988, they lodged their derogation under Article 15 of the Convention concerning the exercise of powers under section 12 of the 1984 Act which were inconsistent with Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
• EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 11395/08

  EREN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  The Court reiterates that the promptness is to be assessed in each case according to its special features; the significance to be attached to those features can never be taken to the point of impairing the very essence of the right guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, that is to the point of effectively negativing the State's obligation to ensure a prompt release or a prompt appearance before a judicial authority (see Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, 29 November 1988, § 59, Series A no. 145 B).
• EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74318/01

  RESUL SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

  It reiterates that, in the case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, it held that detention in police custody which had lasted four days and six hours without judicial control fell outside the strict time constraints of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, even though its purpose was to protect the community as a whole against terrorism (judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145 B, pp. 33-34, § 62).
• EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 13007/02

  SAHIN AND SURGEC v. TURKEY

  It reiterates that, in the case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145 B, pp. 33-34, § 62), it held that detention in police custody which had lasted four days and six hours without judicial control fell outside the strict time constraints of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, even though its purpose was to protect the community as a whole against terrorism (see Brogan and Others, cited above, pp. 33-34, § 62).
• EGMR, 06.02.2003 - 37021/97

  ZEYNEP AVCI c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 10.10.2002 - 31877/96

  GUNDOGAN c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 20.05.2010 - 20259/06

  AYTIMUR c. TURQUIE
• EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 59246/00

  RÜZGAR c. TURQUIE
• EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18759/91

  McLAUGHLIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 11564/02

  HACI ZEKI UZUN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 76106/01

  BAZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 77191/01

  AVCI (CABAT) AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 77649/01

  AHMET METE v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 4528/02

  SEVK v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 22.07.2003 - 29422/95

  AYSE TEPE c. TURQUIE
• EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 28188/95

  TYRRELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 18714/91

  BRIND AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 10.03.2009 - 71912/01

  BÖKE AND KANDEMIR v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 5337/02

  MEHMET BILEN v. TURKEY
• EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 47922/99

  GANUSAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA