Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  CROWTHER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Art. 6-1 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 27.08.2002 - 53741/00
• EGMR, 08.07.2003 - 53741/00
• EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 53741/00

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 09.02.1995 - 17440/90

  WELCH v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 01.02.2005 - 53741/00

  It has held that confiscation proceedings of the type brought against the applicant are analogous to the determination by a court of the amount of a fine or the length of a period of imprisonment to be imposed on a properly convicted offender (see Phillips, § 34, and Welch v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 9 February 1995, Series A no. 307-A, p. 13, §§ 27-28).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 08.01.2009 - 3383/06

  BULLEN AND SONEJI v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  The Court recalls its judgment in the case of Crowther v. the United Kingdom, (no. 53741/00, §§ 24 and 25, 1 February 2005) which also concerned a complaint concerning the length of criminal proceedings where a confiscation order had been imposed.

  Finally, as regards the Government's submissions that the applicants did not press for the confiscation hearing to take place in April and May 2001, but rather agreed to the hearing being fixed for 15 October 2001, and their preliminary objection that the applicants failed to exhaust domestic remedies by not seeking to sever their cases from that of their co-accused, Mr. E., the Court has had regard to its findings in the cases of Price and Lowe v. the United Kingdom (nos. 43185/98 and 43186/98, § 23, 29 July 2003) and Crowther v. the United Kingdom (no. 53741/00, § 29, 1 February 2005) where it held:.

• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 28019/10

  [ENG]

  The applicant noted the Court's judgment in Crowther v. the United Kingdom, no. 53741/00, 1 February 2005, to the effect that the entirety of the proceedings from the criminal charge until the enforcement of the confiscation order were to be considered as one set of proceedings for the purposes of Article 6 § 1. However, he asked the Court to consider this finding afresh in the context of his case.