Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 01.12.1998 - 40787/98
• EGMR, 21.03.2000 - 40787/98
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 40787/98

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 40787/98

  An automatic review every two years was not reasonable on the basis that it was simply too long, as shown by comparable cases examined by the Court (e.g. the Herczegfalvy v. Austria judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, pp. 24-25, §§ 75-78).
• EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 40787/98

  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. 55, § 55).
• EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85

  THYNNE, WILSON AND GUNNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 40787/98

  Article 5 § 4 of the Convention was held applicable to discretionary life sentences since these are imposed on offenders due to considerations of mental instability and dangerousness which are susceptible to change over the passage of time (see, for example, the Thynne, Gunnell and Wilson v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190, p. 30, § 76, where the Court drew comparisons from its case-law concerning the detention of persons of unsound mind under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention, at p. 27, § 69).
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 36273/97

  OLDHAM c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 40787/98

  In the case of Oldham v. the United Kingdom (Section 3), no. 36273/97, judgment of 26 September 2000), also concerning a discretionary life prisoner, the Court found that a two year delay between reviews was not reasonable.

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 59512/00

  BLACKSTOCK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court has stated that it will not attempt to rule as to the maximum period of time between reviews which should automatically apply to this category of life prisoner as a whole and has noted that the system has a flexibility which must reflect the realities of the situation, namely, that there are significant differences in the personal circumstances of the prisoners under review (see Hirst v. the United Kingdom, no. 40787/98, judgment of 24 July 2001, § 38; Dancy v. the United Kingdom, no. 55768/00, (dec.) 21.3.02).
• EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 1190/04

  SPENCE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In Oldham v. the United Kingdom (Section 3), no. 36273/97, judgment of 26 September 2000), and Hirst v. the United Kingdom (Section 3), no. 40787/98, judgment of 24 July 2001) also concerning discretionary life prisoners, the Court found that twenty one month and two year delays between reviews was not reasonable.
• EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 55768/00

  DANCY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  In the case of Oldham v. the United Kingdom (Section 3), no. 36273/97, judgment of 26 September 2000), and Hirst v. the United Kingdom (Section 3), no. 40787/98, judgment of 24 July 2001) also concerning discretionary life prisoners, the Court found that twenty one month and two year delays between reviews was not reasonable.