Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HALL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 8, Art. 13, Art. 17, Art. 35 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 54119/10

  ALEXANDER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Citing Hall v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24712/12, § 32, 12 November 2013, they argued that the applicant had been given access to numerous courses and assessments both pre- and post-tariff and that his post-tariff detention could therefore not be considered "arbitrary".

  They referred to this Court's recent case-law on IPP sentences which they argued showed the narrowness of the claim for a breach of Article 5 § 1 on the grounds of a lack of progress leading to arbitrariness in detention (citing Hall v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24712/12, § 32, 12 November 2013; Dillon v. the United Kingdom, no. 32621/11, 4 November 2014; David Thomas v. the United Kingdom, no. 55863/11, 4 November 2014; and Gareth Taylor v. the United Kingdom, no. 2963/12, 3 March 2015).

• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 28160/15

  KAIYAM AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Thus, where, as in the present applications, the applicant claims that delay in his access to prison courses constituted a violation of Article 5 § 1 (a), the applicant's general progression through the prison system is to be assessed in light of the particular circumstances of the case (see Hall v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24712/12, § 32, 12 November 2013; Black v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23543/11, § 54, 1 July 2014; David Thomas v. the United Kingdom, no. 55863/11, § 49, 4 November 2014; and Gareth Taylor v. the United Kingdom, no. 2963/12, § 39, 3 March 2015).
• EGMR, 03.03.2015 - 2963/12

  GARETH TAYLOR v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Citing Hall v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24712/12, § 32, 12 November 2013, they argued that the applicant had been given access to numerous courses and assessments both pre- and post-tariff and that his post-tariff detention could therefore not be considered "arbitrary".

• EGMR, 07.04.2015 - 22853/09

  HILL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Citing Hall v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24712/12, § 32, 12 November 2013, they argued that the applicant had been given access to numerous courses and assessments both pre- and post-tariff and that his post-tariff detention could therefore not be considered "arbitrary".
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 55863/11

  DAVID THOMAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Citing Hall v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24712/12, § 32, 12 November 2013, they argued that the applicant had been given access to numerous courses and assessments both pre- and post-tariff and that his post-tariff detention could therefore not be considered "arbitrary".
• EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 32621/11

  DILLON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Citing Hall v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24712/12, § 32, 12 November 2013, they argued that the applicant had been given access to numerous courses and assessments both pre- and post-tariff and that his post-tariff detention could therefore not be considered "arbitrary".
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 23543/11

  BLACK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Thus, where, as in the present case, the applicant claims that delay in his access to prison courses constituted a violation of Article 5 § 1 (a), the applicant's general progression through the prison system must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances of the case see Hall v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24712/12, § 32, 12 November 2013).