Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  WOOLLEY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention Article 5-1-a - Conviction) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Woolley v. the United Kingdom

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

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

• EGMR, 05.07.2001 - 41087/98

  PHILLIPS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 28019/10

  In particular, the applicant disputed that Phillips v. the United Kingdom, no. 41087/98, ECHR 2001-VII, was authority for the proposition that the enforcement of a confiscation order was part and parcel of the original sentence imposed.
• EGMR, 05.02.2002 - 51564/99

  Belgien, EMRK, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, Abschiebunghaft, Freiheit …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 28019/10

  The Court has not set out an exhaustive list of what types of conduct on the part of the authorities might constitute arbitrariness for the purposes of Article 5 § 1, but it has indicated that detention will be "arbitrary" where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 59-60, Series A no. 111; Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2002-I; and Saadi, cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 53741/00

  CROWTHER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 28019/10

  The applicant noted the Court's judgment in Crowther v. the United Kingdom, no. 53741/00, 1 February 2005, to the effect that the entirety of the proceedings from the criminal charge until the enforcement of the confiscation order were to be considered as one set of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 § 1. However, he asked the Court to consider this finding afresh in the context of his case.

 
• EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82

  BOZANO v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 28019/10

  The Court has not set out an exhaustive list of what types of conduct on the part of the authorities might constitute arbitrariness for the purposes of Article 5 § 1, but it has indicated that detention will be "arbitrary" where, despite complying with the letter of national law, there has been an element of bad faith or deception on the part of the authorities (see Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 59-60, Series A no. 111; Conka v. Belgium, no. 51564/99, §§ 40-42, ECHR 2002-I; and Saadi, cited above, § 69).
• EGMR, 29.02.1988 - 9106/80

  BOUAMAR v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 28019/10

  Article 5 § 1 also requires that any deprivation of liberty should be in keeping with the purpose of protecting the individual from arbitrariness (see Bouamar v. Belgium, 29 February 1988, § 47, Series A no. 129; Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 118, Reports 1996-V; Saadi, cited above, § 67; and Medvedyev and Others, cited above, § 79).
• EGMR, 30.06.2005 - 45036/98

  Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi ./. Irland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 28019/10

  It is in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, even when that law refers to international law or agreements, and it is for the Court to assess whether the effects of such adjudication are compatible with the Convention (Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland [GC], no. 45036/98, § 143, ECHR 2005-VI).

• EGMR, 29.10.2013 - 17475/09

  VARVARA v. ITALY

  19955/05 and 15085/06, § 49, 23 September 2008 (relating to the same Act), in which the first applicant had had to pay the £ 1,236,748 confiscated, on threat of an additional eight-year prison sentence, and the second applicant £ 1,460,615, on threat of a prison sentence of five years and three months; and Woolley v. the United Kingdom, no. 28019/10, §§ 80-84, 10 April 2012 (relating to section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 139 of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, in which the applicant had had to serve four years" imprisonment in addition to his sentence because he had failed to pay the £ 497, 784.02 confiscated.