Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DANCY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 34 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Zitiert selbst (5)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 55768/00

  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

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 55768/00

  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, 21.03.2002 - 55768/00

  The applicant also invoked the Court's case-law to the effect that, following the expiry of the tariff, prisoners sentenced to a discretionary life sentence should be entitled to regular reviews by a judicial like body of their continued imprisonment (Thynne, Gunnell and Wilson v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190).
• EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 36273/97

  OLDHAM c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 55768/00

  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.
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 40787/98

  HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 21.03.2002 - 55768/00

  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.

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

  Conversely, a twenty four month period for a prisoner who had been recently transferred to Category C conditions and with whom ongoing work towards release was in progress was found in one case not to show a failure to apply standards of reasonable expedition (Dancy v. the United Kingdom, 55768/00, (dec.) 21.3.2002).