Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEGER c. FRANCE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  Non-violation de l'art. 5-1-a Non-violation de l'art. 3 (französisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  LEGER v. FRANCE

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-1-a No violation of Art. 3 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 21.09.2004 - 19324/02
• EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02
• EGMR, 30.03.2009 - 19324/02

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Neu Zitiert selbst (15)

• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 46295/99

  STAFFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02

  The applicant submitted that the Court's findings in the cases of Stafford v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 46295/99, § 66, ECHR 2002-IV), Weeks v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114-A) and Wynne v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 294-A), concerning mandatory and discretionary life sentences in the United Kingdom, were perfectly applicable to the system employed in France.

  In other words, a person who was detained lawfully can, as circumstances change over time, become a person whose continued detention is unlawful (see, mutatis mutandis, in relation to a person of unsound mind, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50; see also Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, and, more recently, the Grand Chamber's judgment in Stafford v. the United Kingdom, no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV).

  In particular, where Article 5 is concerned, the entire period during which the review of sentences was "non-judicial" escapes the Court's scrutiny, as does the question of the power vested in the Minister of Justice (who formerly had responsibility for decisions on parole), which is known to raise an issue under the Convention (see Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV) and which by its very nature excludes a number of procedural safeguards to which a convicted person should be entitled.

• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02

  The applicant submitted that the Court's findings in the cases of Stafford v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 46295/99, § 66, ECHR 2002-IV), Weeks v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114-A) and Wynne v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 18 July 1994, Series A no. 294-A), concerning mandatory and discretionary life sentences in the United Kingdom, were perfectly applicable to the system employed in France.

  In other words, a person who was detained lawfully can, as circumstances change over time, become a person whose continued detention is unlawful (see, mutatis mutandis, in relation to a person of unsound mind, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50; see also Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, and, more recently, the Grand Chamber's judgment in Stafford v. the United Kingdom, no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV).

  The dangerousness element is by its very nature susceptible of change with the passage of time (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, pp. 24-25, § 46).

• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24724/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02

  It has pointed out that it does not pronounce on "the appropriate length of detention or other sentence which should be served by a person after conviction by a competent court" (see T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999, and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX).

  The Court's case-law is suspicious about the exercise of such power by a member of the executive (see the Grand Chamber's judgments of 16 December 1999 in T. and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 24724/94 and 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX).

 
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02

  It has pointed out that it does not pronounce on "the appropriate length of detention or other sentence which should be served by a person after conviction by a competent court" (see T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, 16 December 1999, and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX).

  The Court's case-law is suspicious about the exercise of such power by a member of the executive (see the Grand Chamber's judgments of 16 December 1999 in T. and V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 24724/94 and 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX).

• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  VAN DROOGENBROECK v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02

  More specifically, in the case of lengthy sentences and decisions to re-detain or not to release prisoners, the causal link between such decisions and the initial judgment might eventually be broken "if a position were reached in which those decisions were based on grounds that had no connection with the objectives of the legislature and the court or on an assessment that was unreasonable in terms of those objectives" (they cited Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, pp. 21-22, § 40, and Weeks, cited above, p. 26, § 49).

  In other words, a person who was detained lawfully can, as circumstances change over time, become a person whose continued detention is unlawful (see, mutatis mutandis, in relation to a person of unsound mind, Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50; see also Weeks v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, and, more recently, the Grand Chamber's judgment in Stafford v. the United Kingdom, no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV).

• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02

  Lastly, as to whether the procedure prescribed by domestic law had been observed in the applicant's case (they cited Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, p. 20, § 46), the Government pointed out that the Court incorporated national legislation into all the requirements to be satisfied under Article 5, making compliance with domestic law a precondition for compliance with the Convention.

  Looking beyond appearances, the Court has always held that the "lawfulness" required by the Convention presupposes not only conformity with domestic law but also, as confirmed by Article 18, conformity with the purposes of the deprivation of liberty permitted by Article 5 § 1 (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, judgment of 24 October 1979, Series A no. 33, pp. 17-18, § 39, and Stafford, cited above, § 64); it is required in respect of both the ordering and the execution of the measures involving deprivation of liberty.

• EGMR, 14.11.2002 - 67263/01

  MOUISEL v. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02

  The Court often repeats with regard to prisoners that their suffering must not go beyond that inevitably associated with legitimate expectations of a prison sentence (see Mouisel v. France, no. 67263/01, § 40, ECHR 2002-IX).
• EGMR, 07.07.1989 - 14038/88

  Jens Söring

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02

  A never-ending detention of this kind is comparable to a slow death sentence or to death row with no exit (see Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A no. 161).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02

  Secondly, the reasons given by the courts can easily become stereotyped or irrelevant and must therefore be reviewed, as in the case of continued pre-trial detention (see, for an early example, Neumeister v. Austria, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 8, and the subsequent settled case-law).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 19324/02

  They pointed out that in order for a punishment to be degrading and in breach of Article 3, the humiliation or debasement involved had to attain a particular level and in any event had to be other than the usual element of humiliation inherent in any punishment (they cited Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26, and Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 37, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 03.07.2001 - 44190/98

  NIVETTE contre la FRANCE
• EGMR, 16.10.2001 - 71555/01

  EINHORN c. FRANCE
• EGMR, 26.06.2003 - 58853/00

  PARTINGTON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

  X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …