Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PERKS AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c MRK
  No violation of Art. 5-1 Inadmissible under Art. 5-5 Violation of Art. 6-1 Violation of Art. 6-3-c Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (Perks) Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings ...

• Österreichisches Institut für Menschenrechte

  (englisch)

Kurzfassungen/Presse

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 25277/94
• EGMR, 12.10.1999 - 25277/94, 25279/94, 25280/94, 25282/94, 25285/94, 28048/95, 28192/95, 28456/95

Wird zitiert von ... (10)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.03.2006 - 59261/00

  MENECHEVA c. RUSSIE

  La Cour rappelle les principes généraux suivants, qui ont été présentés dans l'affaire Benham c. Royaume-Uni (10 juin 1996, §§ 40-42, Recueil 1996-III) avant d'être rappelés dans d'autres affaires (Lloyd et autres c. Royaume-Uni, nos 29798/96 et suiv., 1er mars 2005, et Perks et autres c. Royaume-Uni, nos 25277/94 et suiv., 12 octobre 1999):.
• EGMR, 30.01.2003 - 38884/97

  NIKOLOV v. BULGARIA

  For the purposes of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, however, having regard to the submissions of the parties and the material in the case, the Court does not find it established that the defect in the initial detention order was of such a nature so as to deprive the applicant's detention of its legal basis under domestic law (see, mutatis mutandis, Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 25277/94 and others, 12 October 1999, unreported, and Douiyeb v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 31464/96, 4 August 1999, unreported).
• EGMR, 05.07.2011 - 40047/04

  [ENG]

  The above approach has often been applied by the Court in situations where a significant number of individuals have filed similar applications (see, for example, Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 25277/94 et al., 12 October 1999, and Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos.

• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 27238/03

  DZHAMBEKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  25277/94 et seq., 12 October 1999):.
• EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 60682/00

  YOUNG v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  She argued that she had established a causal link between the violations established and a loss of real opportunity (Goddi v. Italy, judgment of 9 April 1984, Series A no. 76, § 35; Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 25277/94, 25279/94, 25280/94, 25282/94, 25285/94, 28048/95, 28192/95 and 28456/95, §§ 80-81, 12 October 1979, and the above-cited Ezeh and Connors judgment, § 112).
• EGMR, 02.09.2004 - 16943/02

  DOLKAS c. GRECE (N° 7)

  La première est l'absence de « moyens de rémunérer un défenseur'et la seconde consiste à rechercher si les « intérêts de la justice'commandaient d'accorder au requérant une telle assistance et, dans l'affirmative, d'examiner si l'assistance apportée au requérant répondait aux exigences de l'article 6 § 3 c) de la Convention (mutatis mutandis Boner c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 28 octobre 1994, série A no 300-B, p. 74, § 36 ; Perks et autres c. Royaume-Uni, nos 25277/94, 25279/94, 25280/94, 25282/94, 25285/94, 28048/95, 28192/95 et 28456/95, § 76, 12 octobre 1999).
• EGMR, 28.10.2003 - 38223/97

  MINJAT c. SUISSE

  Plus précisément, il souligne que la Cour, sur la base de la distinction existant en droit interne entre les actes ordonnés dans le cadre de la compétence du tribunal (valables tant qu'une juridiction supérieure ne les infirme pas) et ceux qui s'en écartent (nuls ab initio), a déjà jugé qu'une détention, bien qu'annulée en appel, avait eu lieu « selon les voies légales'(arrêts Benham précité, pp. 753 et 754, §§ 43 et 46, et Perks et autres c. Royaume-Uni, nos 25277/94, 25279/94, 25280/94, 25282/94, 25285/94, 28048/95, 28192/95 et 28456/95, §§ 62, 66 à 68, 12 octobre 1999).
• EGMR, 19.06.2001 - 39360/98

  S.B.C. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  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, 12.09.2000 - 29047/95

  BAKER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  On 12 October 1999 the Court delivered judgment in the case of Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom (25277/94 et al.), which concerned part of a group of similar cases, pending the resolution of which the present applications under consideration were adjourned.
• EGMR, 16.11.2004 - 42317/98

  HOOPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Government argued that this equated to the redress which the Court provided to the applicants in Perks and Others v. the United Kingdom (nos. 25277/94 and others, 12 October 1999 ("Perks"), § 82), where it held that a finding of a violation of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3(c) of the Convention was in itself just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage.