Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  EASTERBROOK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Not necessary to examine Art. 5-4 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 48015/99
• EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 48015/99

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

• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 48015/99

  The fixing of the tariff, which is the part of the sentence said to reflect the requirements of retribution and deterrence, has been found to constitute part of the sentencing exercise for young offenders detained during Her Majesty's pleasure (see V. v. the United Kingdom ([GC] no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX, §§ 109-111) and for adult prisoners sentenced to mandatory life sentences for murder (see Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV, § 87).
• EGMR, 28.05.2002 - 46295/99

  STAFFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 48015/99

  The fixing of the tariff, which is the part of the sentence said to reflect the requirements of retribution and deterrence, has been found to constitute part of the sentencing exercise for young offenders detained during Her Majesty's pleasure (see V. v. the United Kingdom ([GC] no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX, §§ 109-111) and for adult prisoners sentenced to mandatory life sentences for murder (see Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, ECHR 2002-IV, § 87).
• EGMR, 15.07.1982 - 8130/78

  Eckle ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.06.2003 - 48015/99

  In criminal matters, it is clear that Article 6 § 1 covers the whole of the proceedings in issue, including appeal proceedings and the determination of sentence (see, for example, Eckle v. Germany, judgment of 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51, pp. 34-35, §§ 76-77).

• EGMR, 25.08.2009 - 39586/05

  A.D. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The applicant submitted that his case was virtually identical, legally and factually, to that examined in Easterbrook v. the United Kingdom, no. 48015/99, 12 June 2003, in which the Court had concluded that the sentencing arrangements were in breach of Article 6 § 1. The re-setting of his tariff was not, as the House of Lords had held, akin to a procedure of appeal or review.

  The Court would first observe that the procedure before the Lord Chief Justice came within the scope of Article 6 § 1, which, in criminal matters, applies to all stages of the proceedings in issue (Easterbrook v. the United Kingdom, no. 48015/99, § 26, 12 June 2003).