Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OLDHAM c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation de l'art. 5-4 Dommage matériel - demande rejetée Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire Remboursement partiel frais et dépens - procédure de la Convention ...

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  OLDHAM v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-4 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 07.03.2000 - 36273/97
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 36273/97

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Neu Zitiert selbst (3)

• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  HERCZEGFALVY c. AUTRICHE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 36273/97

  It is already established in the case-law of the Convention organs that this requirement implies not only that the competent courts must reach their decisions "speedily" but also that, where an automatic review of the lawfulness of detention has been instituted, their decisions must follow at "reasonable intervals" (see the Herczegfalvy v. Austria judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 24, § 75).
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  SANCHEZ-REISSE c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 36273/97

  It is true that the question of whether periods comply with the requirement must - as with the reasonable-time stipulation in Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 - be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see the Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland judgment of 21 October 1986, Series A no. 107, p. 20, § 55).
• EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85

  THYNNE, WILSON AND GUNNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 36273/97

  Article 5 § 4 was held to be applicable to discretionary life sentences since these were imposed on offenders due to considerations of mental instability and dangerousness which were susceptible to change over the passage of time (see, for example, the Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A, p. 30, § 76, and p. 27, § 69, where the Court drew comparisons from its case-law concerning the detention of persons of unsound mind under Article 5 § 1 (e)).

• EGMR, 16.07.2015 - 7997/08

  KUTTNER v. AUSTRIA

  The question of whether periods comply with the requirement of "speediness" under Article 5 § 4 must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 107, Oldham v. the United Kingdom, no. 36273/97, § 31, ECHR 2000-X, and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 84, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 20.07.2017 - 11537/11

  LORENZ v. AUSTRIA

  The question of whether periods comply with the requirement of "speediness" under Article 5 § 4 must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 107, Oldham v. the United Kingdom, no. 36273/97, § 31, ECHR 2000-X, and Rehbock v. Slovenia, no. 29462/95, § 84, ECHR 2000-XII).
• EGMR, 02.10.2012 - 14743/11

  ABDULKHAKOV v. RUSSIA

  Thus, as regards detention after conviction by a competent court in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (a), the Court has accepted as "reasonable" periods of less than a year between reviews of detention of discretionary life prisoners and rejected periods of more than one year (see Oldham v. the United Kingdom, no. 36273/97, § 31, ECHR 2000-X; Hirst v. the United Kingdom, no. 40787/98, § 39, 24 July 2001; and Blackstock, cited above, § 44).

 
• EGMR, 07.11.2013 - 43165/10

  ERMAKOV v. RUSSIA

  The question of whether periods comply with the requirement must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 107, and Oldham v. the United Kingdom, no. 36273/97, § 31, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 17.07.2014 - 42351/13

  KADIRZHANOV AND MAMASHEV v. RUSSIA

  The question of whether periods comply with the requirement must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 107, and Oldham v. the United Kingdom, no. 36273/97, § 31, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 05.06.2008 - 69248/01

  MEHMEDALI c. BULGARIE

  Dans les cas où l'exercice d'un recours contre la légalité de la détention n'est possible qu'au bout d'un certain temps, la Cour tient compte de la durée, de l'ampleur et des effets de la restriction en cause (voir, mutatis mutandis, Chichkov c. Bulgarie, no 38822/97, §§ 88 et 89, CEDH 2003-I (extraits) ; Oldham c. Royaume-Uni, no 36273/97, §§ 31 à 36, CEDH 2000-X ; Silva Rocha c. Portugal, arrêt du 15 novembre 1996, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-V, pp.
• EGMR, 15.10.2015 - 8474/14

  NABID ABDULLAYEV v. RUSSIA

  The question of whether the periods comply with the requirement must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 107, and Oldham v. the United Kingdom, no. 36273/97, § 31, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 35237/14

  YERMAKOVICH v. RUSSIA

  The question of whether the periods comply with the requirement must be determined in the light of the circumstances of each case (see Sanchez-Reisse v. Switzerland, 21 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 107, and Oldham v. the United Kingdom, no. 36273/97, § 31, ECHR 2000-X).