Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 28212/95 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2002,34232) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BENJAMIN AND WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Verfahrensgang
- EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28212/95
- EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 28212/95
- EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 28212/95
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (5)
- EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 27154/95
D.N. c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 28212/95
In addition, as the text makes clear, the body in question must have not merely advisory functions but must have the competence to "decide" the "lawfulness" of the detention and to order release if the detention is unlawful (see the above-mentioned Weeks judgment, loc. cit., Singh v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1996, Reports 1996-I, § 66, D.N. v. Switzerland, [GC], no. 27154/95, ECHR 2001-III, § 39). - EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72
SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 28212/95
They argued that compliance with Article 5 § 4 could be achieved by administrative practice and policy, citing the cases of Leander v. Sweden (judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, § 51) and Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, §§ 88-89). - EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75
X v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 28212/95
While the "court" referred to in this provision does not necessarily have to be a court of law of the classic kind integrated within the judicial machinery of the country, it does denote bodies which exhibit the necessary judicial procedures and safeguards appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question, including most importantly independence of the executive and of the parties (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, pp. 41-42, §§ 76 and 86; X v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 23, § 53, and Weeks v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 30, § 61). - EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81
LEANDER c. SUÈDE
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 28212/95
They argued that compliance with Article 5 § 4 could be achieved by administrative practice and policy, citing the cases of Leander v. Sweden (judgment of 26 March 1987, Series A no. 116, § 51) and Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, §§ 88-89). - EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82
WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 28212/95
While the "court" referred to in this provision does not necessarily have to be a court of law of the classic kind integrated within the judicial machinery of the country, it does denote bodies which exhibit the necessary judicial procedures and safeguards appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question, including most importantly independence of the executive and of the parties (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, pp. 41-42, §§ 76 and 86; X v. the United Kingdom judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 23, § 53, and Weeks v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 30, § 61).