Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  THOMPSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-5 Violation of Art. 6-3-c Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 20.03.2001 - 36256/97
• EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 36256/97

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (7)

• EGMR, 28.06.1984 - 7819/77

  CAMPBELL AND FELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 36256/97

  In this respect, it is recalled that the Convention requires that a person charged with a criminal offence (see paragraphs 32 and 42 above) who does not wish to defend himself in person must be able to have recourse to legal assistance of his own choosing (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, § 99 and Pakelli v. Germany judgment of 25 April 1983, Series A no. 64, § 31).
• EGMR, 25.04.1983 - 8398/78

  Pakelli ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 36256/97

  In this respect, it is recalled that the Convention requires that a person charged with a criminal offence (see paragraphs 32 and 42 above) who does not wish to defend himself in person must be able to have recourse to legal assistance of his own choosing (Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, § 99 and Pakelli v. Germany judgment of 25 April 1983, Series A no. 64, § 31).
• EGMR, 22.05.1984 - 8805/79

  DE JONG, BALJET ET VAN DEN BRINK c. PAYS-BAS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 36256/97

  Given the sentence of imprisonment for which the 1955 Act provided (two years), the sentence risked before a Commanding Officer (sixty days) and the twenty-eight days" imprisonment actually imposed, it can be considered that the applicant was arrested on reasonable suspicion of having committed an "offence" within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (De Jong, Baljet and Van den Brink v. the Netherlands judgment of 22 May 1984, Series A no. 77, §§ 42-44 and Jordan v. the United Kingdom (no. 1), no. 30280/96, § 25, 10 December 2002).

 
• EGMR, 23.10.1990 - 12794/87

  HUBER c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 36256/97

  The Court does not find that the evidence in the present case (see the other criminal charges pending against him on 30 January 1997 - paragraphs 10-11 above) gives any reason to suppose that pre-trial detention would not have occurred had the applicant's remand been a matter within the competence of a judicial officer who did offer the guarantees of Article 5 § 3 (Huber v. Switzerland, judgment of 23 October 1990, Series A no. 188, §§ 45-46, the above-cited Hood judgment at §§ 84 and 85 and Nikolova v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 31195/96, § 76, ECHR 1999-II).
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 48843/99

  COOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 36256/97

  The 1996 Act significantly amended court-martial procedures and the new system is also summarised in the Findlay judgment (at §§ 52-57) and is outlined in more detail in the case of Cooper v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 48843/99, §§ 15-76, ECHR 2003-XII).
• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95

  HOOD c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 36256/97

  The relevant domestic law and practice contained in the Army Act 1955 ("the 1955 Act"), the Rules of Procedure (Army) 1972 and the Queen's Regulations ("QR") are outlined in the Hood v. the United Kingdom judgment ([GC], no. 27267/95, ECHR 1999-I, §§ 20-43).
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 57067/00

  GRIEVES v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.06.2004 - 36256/97

  The proceedings before the Commanding Officer were, consequently, unfair (Grieves v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 57067/00, § 91, ECHR 2003-XII).

• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 41534/98

  BELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Contrary to the position in the case of Thompson v. the United Kingdom (no. 36256/97, 15 June 2004), the present applicant could have chosen a court-martial convened under the 1996 Act which would have fully complied with the requirements of the Convention (Cooper v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 48843/99, ECHR 2003-XII).

  In outlining its reasoning on the waiver point, the majority of the Chamber relied upon the Thomson case (Thompson v. the United Kingdom, no. 36256/97, 15 June 2004) but not specifically applying it to the circumstances of the present case.

• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 36662/04

  DRAKSAS v. LITHUANIA

  In my opinion, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, any damage which allegedly could have been suffered by the applicant would be sufficiently compensated for by its finding of a violation of Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, mutatis mutandis, Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, §§ 47-49, ECHR 2000-X; Thompson v. the United Kingdom, no. 36256/97, 15 June 2004; and Lamy v. Belgium, 30 March 1989, § 42, Series A no. 151).
• EGMR, 10.04.2008 - 61697/00

  MELONI c. SUISSE

  A cet égard, la Cour rappelle qu'on peut certes renoncer, sous quelques conditions, à ses droits garantis par la Convention (voir, par exemple, Håkansson et Sturesson c. Suède, arrêt du 21 février 1990, série A no 171-A, § 66, Pfeifer et Plankl c. Autriche, arrêt du 25 février 1992, série A no 227, § 37, et Thompson c. Royaume-Uni, no 36256/97, § 43, 15 juin 2004 ).