Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BENJAMIN AND WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-4 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28212/95
• EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 28212/95
• EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 28212/95

Wird zitiert von ... (0)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.03.1987 - 9248/81

  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, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  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

  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, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75

  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, 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).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen

Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  FORDE, BENJAMIN AND WILSON v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
  Partly struck out of the list (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EKMR, 27.11.1996 - 28212/95
• EKMR, 23.10.1997 - 28212/95
• EGMR, 26.09.2002 - 28212/95