Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 39360/98 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,30422) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 05.09.2000 - 39360/98
- EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 39360/98
Wird zitiert von ... (3) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 27267/95
HOOD c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 39360/98
The Court recalls that just satisfaction can be awarded only in respect of damage resulting from a deprivation of liberty that an applicant would not have suffered if he had had the benefit of the guarantees of Article 5 (Hood v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 27267/95, § 84, ECHR 1999-I). - EGMR, 08.02.2000 - 32819/96
CABALLERO v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 39360/98
Mr Caballero did not pursue his connected complaint under Article 13 before the Court (Caballero v. the United Kingdom [GC], n° 32819/96, §§ 21 and 24, ECHR 2000-II). - EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 39360/98
However, the Court considers that the circumstances of the present case are such that it should examine the issues to which the complaints give rise under Articles 5 §§ 3 and 5 of the Convention (Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, at §§ 154-155; Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, §§ 79-82; Findlay v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 February 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-I, §§ 66-67; A v. the United Kingdom judgment of 23 September 1998, Reports 1998-V, § 19; and Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 25777/94, 25279/94, 25280/94, 25282/94, 25285/94, 28048/95, 28192/95 and 28456/95, § 64, 12 October 1999).
- EGMR, 26.06.2012 - 33376/07
PIRUZYAN v. ARMENIA
The Court further observes that it has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 3 in a number of cases in which an application for bail was refused automatically by virtue of the law (see Caballero v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32819/96, § 21, ECHR 2000-II, and S.B.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 39360/98, §§ 23-24, 19 June 2001). - EGMR, 10.07.2012 - 3627/06
GRIGORYAN v. ARMENIA
The Court notes that it has previously found a violation of Article 5 § 3 in a number of cases in which an application for bail was refused automatically by virtue of the law (see Caballero v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 32819/96, § 21, ECHR 2000-II, and S.B.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 39360/98, §§ 23-24, 19 June 2001). - EGMR, 27.03.2003 - 72219/01
WARDLE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Accordingly, in cases concerning former section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the Court found that any consideration by a Magistrate of an accused's pre-trial release on bail had been excluded in advance by the legislature by section 25 and that such removal of the judicial control over pre-trial detention amounted to a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, for example, S.B.C. v. the United Kingdom, no. 39360/98, §§ 22-23, to be published in ECHR-2001).