Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 59512/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2005,63972) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BLACKSTOCK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5, Art. 41 MRK
Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 5-5 Non-pecuniary damage - financial award Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 59512/00
- EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 59512/00
Wird zitiert von ... Zitiert selbst (6)
- EGMR, 24.09.1992 - 10533/83
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 59512/00
Rn. 42 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 Herczegfalvy v. Austria, judgment of 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244, p. 24, § 75). - EGMR, 21.10.1986 - 9862/82
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 59512/00
Rn. 43 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 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, 21.06.2005 - 59512/00
The applicability of Article 5 § 5 is not dependent on a domestic finding of unlawfulness or proof that but for the breach the person would have been released (see Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A, § 82, and the authorities cited therein).
- EGMR, 26.09.2000 - 36273/97
OLDHAM c. ROYAUME-UNI
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 59512/00
In the cases of Oldham v. the United Kingdom (no. 36273/97, judgment of 26 September 2000) and Hirst v. the United Kingdom, cited above), concerning discretionary life prisoners, the Court found that 21 month and 2 year delays between reviews were not reasonable. - EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 40787/98
HIRST v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 59512/00
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, 21.03.2002 - 55768/00
DANCY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 59512/00
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
Article 5 § 4 does not, however, contain any requirement for the "court" referred to therein itself to have the power to set the timing of subsequent reviews of detention (see Stuart Blackstock v. the United Kingdom, 59512/00, dec. 27.5.04).
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.
Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 59512/00 |
Zitiervorschläge
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2004,58278) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
BLACKSTOCK v. the UNITED KINGDOM
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 5 MRK
Admissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 59512/00
- EGMR, 21.06.2005 - 59512/00
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Zitiert selbst (8)
- EKMR, 03.12.1996 - 28376/95
K.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 59512/00
The Divisional Court proceeded to consider the relevant Convention case-law, quoting from K.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28376/95, Commission decision of 3 December 1996, unreported, and from Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93).The decision of the Secretary of State not to follow the recommendation of the Parole Board to transfer the applicant to an open prison following his review in June 1998 was not a decision which determined the lawfulness of the applicant's detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 4. It referred inter alia to the Commission decision in K.M. v. the United Kingdom (no. 28376/95, decision of 3 December 1996) rejecting as inadmissible a similar complaint and to the Court's judgment in Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A, no. 93) in which the Court stated that Article 5 § 4 did not guarantee a right to judicial control of the legality of all aspects or details of the detention in question.
- EGMR, 28.05.1985 - 8225/78
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 59512/00
The Divisional Court proceeded to consider the relevant Convention case-law, quoting from K.M. v. the United Kingdom, no. 28376/95, Commission decision of 3 December 1996, unreported, and from Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A no. 93). - EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 59512/00
Article 5 § 4 does not guarantee a right to judicial control of the legality of all aspects or details of the detention (see the above-cited Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom judgment, § 52; and the Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium, judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, p. 26, § 49).
- EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 59512/00
While the "court" referred to in this provision does not necessarily have to be a court of law of the classic kind integrated within the judicial machinery of the country, it does denote bodies which exhibit the necessary judicial procedures and safeguards appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question, including most importantly independence of the executive and of the parties (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, pp. 41-42, §§ 76 and 86; X v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 23, § 53, and Weeks v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 30, § 61). - EGMR, 05.10.2000 - 31365/96
VARBANOV v. BULGARIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 59512/00
Article 5 § 4 provides a crucial guarantee against the arbitrariness of detention, providing for detained persons to obtain a review by a court of the lawfulness of their detention both at the time of the initial deprivation of liberty and, where new issues of lawfulness are capable of arising, periodically thereafter (see, inter alia, Kurt v. Turkey, judgment of 25 May 1998, Reports 1998-III, § 123, and Varbanov v. Bulgaria, no. 31365/96, ECHR 2000-X, § 58). - EGMR, 05.11.1981 - 7215/75
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 59512/00
While the "court" referred to in this provision does not necessarily have to be a court of law of the classic kind integrated within the judicial machinery of the country, it does denote bodies which exhibit the necessary judicial procedures and safeguards appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question, including most importantly independence of the executive and of the parties (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A no. 12, pp. 41-42, §§ 76 and 86; X v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 5 November 1981, Series A no. 46, p. 23, § 53, and Weeks v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 30, § 61). - EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85
THYNNE, WILSON AND GUNNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 59512/00
In the case of the continuing detention of a person sentenced to a discretionary life sentence in the United Kingdom, Article 5 § 4 requires the possibility of a review of the lawfulness of the detention once the tariff part of the sentence has been served (see Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A). - EGMR, 29.03.2001 - 27154/95
D.N. c. SUISSE
Auszug aus EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 59512/00
In addition, as the text makes clear, the body in question must have not merely advisory functions but must have the competence to "decide" the "lawfulness" of the detention and to order release if the detention is unlawful (see the above-mentioned Weeks judgment, loc. cit., Singh v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1996, Reports 1996-I, § 66; D.N. v. Switzerland, [GC], no. 27154/95, ECHR 2001-III, § 39).
dejure.org
Übersicht EGMR
Einloggen | Registrieren
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen. Falls Sie noch kein Benutzerkonto haben, können Sie sich in weniger als einer Minute eines kostenlos anlegen "Registrieren".
Externe Links öffnen jetzt in einem neuen Tab. Sie können dieses Verhalten auch auf Ihrer Einstellungsseite ändern.