Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HUSSAIN c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 5-4 Non-lieu à examiner l'art. 14 Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HUSSAIN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 14, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-4 Not necessary to examine Art. 14 Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 30.06.1994 - 21928/93
• EKMR, 11.10.1994 - 21928/93
• EGMR, 21.02.1996 - 21928/93

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 21.09.1993 - 12350/86

  KREMZOW v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.1996 - 21928/93

  The Court recalls in this context that, in matters of such crucial importance as the deprivation of liberty and where questions arise which involve, for example, an assessment of the applicant's character or mental state, it has held that it may be essential to the fairness of the proceedings that the applicant be present at an oral hearing (see, mutatis mutandis, the Kremzow v. Austria judgment of 21 September 1993, Series A no. 268-B, p. 45, para. 67).
• EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82

  WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.1996 - 21928/93

  In dealing with this issue the Court must therefore decide whether the substance of a sentence of detention under section 53 is more closely related to that at the heart of the cases of Weeks v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114) and Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell (cited above at paragraph 34) or to that in the more recent case of Wynne v. the United Kingdom (cited at paragraph 47).
• EGMR, 21.02.1990 - 9310/81

  POWELL ET RAYNER c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.1996 - 21928/93

  The Court notes that this particular complaint was not dealt with by the Commission in its report or admissibility decision and that, as pointed out by the Delegate of the Commission, it is uncertain whether it can be regarded as falling within the compass of the case before the Court as delimited by the Commission's decision on admissibility (see, inter alia, the Powell and Rayner v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1990, Series A no. 172, p. 13, para. 29).
• EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85

  THYNNE, WILSON AND GUNNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.02.1996 - 21928/93

  The 1991 Act instituted changes to the regime applying to the release of discretionary life prisoners following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A).

• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 18233/16

  ETUTE c. LUXEMBOURG

  One important but somewhat specific group of cases where Article 5 § 4 has come into play are cases against the United Kingdom: the Court has found that Article 5 § 4 guarantees life prisoners the right to a remedy to determine the lawfulness of their continuing detention once they had served the initial punitive term under British law (the retributive and deterrent part of their sentence, or the "tariff"), upon expiry of which further detention depends solely on circumstances subject to change (such as the considered dangerousness of the individual or the risk of his or her reoffending) and thus not incorporated in the original conviction and sentence (see, e.g., Hussain v. the United Kingdom, no. 21928/93, 21 February 1996; V. v the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, 16 December 1999; Stafford v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 46295/99, §§ 87-90, 28 May 2002; and Waite v. the United Kingdom, no. 53236/99, § 56, 10 December 2002).
• EKMR, 30.06.1994 - 23389/94

  SINGH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  On 5 April 1994, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the Government, to ask for written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application and to invite the parties to an oral hearing to be held consecutively with the hearing in the case of Abed Hussain v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 21928/93.