Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  DAVID THOMAS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty Lawful arrest or detention) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Thomas v. the United Kingdom

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (2)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 12.11.2013 - 24712/12

  HALL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 55863/11

  Citing Hall v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24712/12, § 32, 12 November 2013, they argued that the applicant had been given access to numerous courses and assessments both pre- and post-tariff and that his post-tariff detention could therefore not be considered "arbitrary".
• EGMR, 01.07.2014 - 23543/11

  BLACK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 04.11.2014 - 55863/11

  The Court is satisfied that at the point at which the applicant lodged his application, the possibility of judicial review proceedings offered no prospect of success as regards systemic delay in access to rehabilitative courses (see Black v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23543/11, § 52, 1 July 2014).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 41418/04

  [ENG]

  Harakchiev et Tolumov c. Bulgarie, nos 15018/11 et 61199/12, § 266, 8 juillet 2014 ; et aussi James, Wells et Lee c. Royaume-Uni, nos 25119/09, 57715/09 et 57877/09, §§ 211, 213-214, 18 septembre 2012 ; Dillon c. Royaume-Uni, no 32621/11, §§ 50-54, 4 novembre 2014 ; et Thomas c. Royaume-Uni, no 55863/11, §§ 51-54, 4 novembre 2014.
• EGMR, 12.01.2016 - 28160/15

  KAIYAM AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Thus, where, as in the present applications, the applicant claims that delay in his access to prison courses constituted a violation of Article 5 § 1 (a), the applicant's general progression through the prison system is to be assessed in light of the particular circumstances of the case (see Hall v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24712/12, § 32, 12 November 2013; Black v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 23543/11, § 54, 1 July 2014; David Thomas v. the United Kingdom, no. 55863/11, § 49, 4 November 2014; and Gareth Taylor v. the United Kingdom, no. 2963/12, § 39, 3 March 2015).
• EGMR, 30.06.2015 - 54119/10

  ALEXANDER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  They referred to this Court's recent case-law on IPP sentences which they argued showed the narrowness of the claim for a breach of Article 5 § 1 on the grounds of a lack of progress leading to arbitrariness in detention (citing Hall v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 24712/12, § 32, 12 November 2013; Dillon v. the United Kingdom, no. 32621/11, 4 November 2014; David Thomas v. the United Kingdom, no. 55863/11, 4 November 2014; and Gareth Taylor v. the United Kingdom, no. 2963/12, 3 March 2015).