Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MAGEE AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 35 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Brought promptly before judge or other officer Conditional release) (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (5)Zitiert selbst (12)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.10.2006 - 543/03

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 26289/12

  In particular, the court held that although there was no doubt that the "competent legal authority" referred to in Article 5 § 1(c) was the authority having competence to deal with a criminal charge (the Magistrate in the United Kingdom), in Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, § 29, Series A no. 34 and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, ECHR 2006-X the Court had made it clear that the function of "a judge or other officer" for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention could be carried out by an officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and did not necessarily have to be a person with power to conduct the trial of any eventual criminal charge; that, although there was no express power to order release in the 2000 Act as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, such a power must be implied; that, as paragraph 32 of Schedule 8 to the 2000 Act provided that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the further detention of a person was necessary, it therefore contained a requirement of proportionality; that, there was no provision for conditional release on bail within the statutory scheme, an issue which did not arise in the present case but would need to be addressed in any future case in which it arose; that, although paragraph 33(3) of Schedule 8 enabled a judicial authority to exclude an applicant or anyone representing him from any part of the hearing and paragraph 34 permitted information to be withheld from the applicant or anyone representing him, there were a range of tools available to the court to preserve to the necessary extent an adversarial procedure and equality of arms; and, finally, that there was no authority which supported the applicants" contention that Article 5 required that a detained person should be charged well before the expiry of the twenty-eight day period contemplated in the 2000 Act.

  Convention case-law established that the latter role had to be carried out with due expedition (McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, ECHR 2006-X).

• EGMR, 04.12.1979 - 7710/76

  Schiesser ./. Schweiz

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 26289/12

  In particular, the court held that although there was no doubt that the "competent legal authority" referred to in Article 5 § 1(c) was the authority having competence to deal with a criminal charge (the Magistrate in the United Kingdom), in Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, § 29, Series A no. 34 and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, ECHR 2006-X the Court had made it clear that the function of "a judge or other officer" for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention could be carried out by an officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and did not necessarily have to be a person with power to conduct the trial of any eventual criminal charge; that, although there was no express power to order release in the 2000 Act as required by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, such a power must be implied; that, as paragraph 32 of Schedule 8 to the 2000 Act provided that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the further detention of a person was necessary, it therefore contained a requirement of proportionality; that, there was no provision for conditional release on bail within the statutory scheme, an issue which did not arise in the present case but would need to be addressed in any future case in which it arose; that, although paragraph 33(3) of Schedule 8 enabled a judicial authority to exclude an applicant or anyone representing him from any part of the hearing and paragraph 34 permitted information to be withheld from the applicant or anyone representing him, there were a range of tools available to the court to preserve to the necessary extent an adversarial procedure and equality of arms; and, finally, that there was no authority which supported the applicants" contention that Article 5 required that a detained person should be charged well before the expiry of the twenty-eight day period contemplated in the 2000 Act.

  The applicants relied on Schiesser v. Switzerland, 4 December 1979, Series A no. 34 as authority for the proposition that "competent legal authority" (in paragraph 1(c) of Article 5) was a synonym, of abbreviated form, for "judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power" (in paragraph 3 of Article 5).

• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 26289/12

  Continued detention therefore can be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty laid down in Article 5 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 110 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI).

• EGMR, 01.07.1961 - 332/57

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 26289/12

  Since Article 5 § 1 (c) forms a whole with Article 5 § 3, "competent legal authority" in paragraph 1 (c) is a synonym, of abbreviated form, for "judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power" in paragraph 3 (see, among other authorities, Lawless v. Ireland (no. 3), 1 July 1961, Series A no. 3, and Schiesser, cited above, § 29).
• EGMR, 27.06.1968 - 1936/63

  Neumeister ./. Österreich

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 26289/12

  As established in Neumeister v. Austria (27 June 1968, p. 37, § 4, Series A no. 8), the second limb of Article 5 § 3 does not give judicial authorities a choice between either bringing an accused to trial within a reasonable time or granting him or her provisional release pending trial.
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 26289/12

  In particular, they must determine whether such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", and whether the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 35, Series A no. 207, and Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 50, Series A no. 319-A).
• EGMR, 26.06.1991 - 12369/86

  LETELLIER c. FRANCE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 26289/12

  In particular, they must determine whether such grounds were "relevant" and "sufficient", and whether the national authorities displayed "special diligence" in the conduct of the proceedings (see, among other authorities, Letellier v. France, 26 June 1991, § 35, Series A no. 207, and Yagci and Sargin v. Turkey, 8 June 1995, § 50, Series A no. 319-A).
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 4494/07

  [ENG]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 26289/12

  Although each case has to be assessed according to its special features (Belousov v. Ukraine, no. 4494/07, § 94, 7 November 2013), the strict time-constraint imposed by this requirement leaves little flexibility in interpretation, otherwise there would be a serious weakening of a procedural guarantee to the detriment of the individual and the risk of impairing the very essence of the right protected by this provision (see Brogan and Others, cited above, § 62, where periods of four days and six hours in detention without appearance before a judge were held to be in violation of Article 5 § 3, even in the special context of terrorist investigations).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25644/94

  T.W. v. MALTA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 26289/12

  These two limbs confer distinct rights and are not on their face logically or temporally linked (see T.W. v. Malta [GC], no. 25644/94, § 49, 29 April 1999, McKay, cited above, § 31 and Medvedyev v. France, cited above, § 119).
• EGMR, 29.04.1999 - 25642/94

  Anforderungen an die unverzügliche Vorführung der festgenommenen Person i.S.d. …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 12.05.2015 - 26289/12

  The judicial bodies contemplated by Article 5 § 1(c) and 5 § 3 did not have to be identical; as Schedule 8 required a detained person to be brought before a judge, it conformed to the essential requirement contained in Article 5 § 3. In support of this assertion the Government relied on the wording of Article 5; the purpose underlying Article 5; and the Court's judgments in Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, ECHR 1999-III and Schiesser v. Switzerland, cited above.
• EGMR, 30.01.2019 - 16115/13

  MARGARETIC CONTRE LA CROATIE
• EGMR, 05.02.2013 - 66994/12

  ABDULRAHMAN v. THE NETHERLANDS

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 22.10.2018 - 35553/12

  Präventivhaft: EGMR lässt Polizei Spielraum im Umgang mit Hooligans

  131. While any period in excess of four days is prima facie too long, in certain circumstances shorter periods can also be in breach of the promptness requirement (see inter alia, Magee and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 26289/12 and 2 others, § 78, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
• EGMR, 07.03.2017 - 29994/02

  [ENG]

  The Court notes in this connection that while it has required that the initial review by a judge take place within a "maximum" of four days after arrest (see McKay, cited above, § 33, and Magee and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 26289/12, 29062/12 and 29891/12, §§ 77-78, ECHR 2015 (extracts)), this case-law must not be understood as requiring no justification where the relevant period is less than four days (see Gal v. Ukraine, no. 6759/11, § 28, 16 April 2015).
• EGMR, 10.11.2022 - 56425/18

  RIMSÄ'VICS v. LATVIA

  While any period in excess of four days is prima facie too long, in certain circumstances shorter periods can also be in breach of the promptness requirement (see Magee and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 26289/12 and 2 others, § 78, ECHR 2015, and the references therein).
• EGMR, 22.10.2015 - 25032/11

  GUDZ v. UKRAINE

  Once the existence of "reasonable suspicion" is no longer enough, the Court must establish whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty (see Magee and Others v. the United Kingdom, nos. 26289/12, 29062/12 and 29891/12, §§ 88-89, 12 May 2015).
• EGMR - 29062/12 (anhängig)

  DUFFY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM and one other application

  29062/12 and 26289/12 Colin Francis DUFFY against the United Kingdom and Gabriel MAGEE against the United Kingdom lodged on 14 May 2012 and 1 May 2012 respectively.