Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BROWN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

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

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Zitiert selbst (1)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.12.1999 - 24888/94

  Mord an James Bulger

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.10.2004 - 968/04

  The Court recalls that where an applicant is convicted and sentenced by a competent court to a determinate term of imprisonment for the purposes of punishment, the review of the lawfulness of detention is incorporated in the trial and appeal procedures (see, mutatis mutandis, V. v. the United Kingdom, no. 24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX, § 119; Stafford v. the United Kingdom, § 87).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 18233/16

  ETUTE c. LUXEMBOURG

  The Court, relying on De Wilde, Ooms and Wersyp (cited above) and several other judgments, including Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2) (no. 36295/02, 2 September 2010; see paragraph 16 below) and Brown v. the United Kingdom ((dec.), no. 968/04, 26 October 2004; see paragraph 18 below) held that the judicial control required by Article 5 § 4 was incorporated in the applicant's "original" conviction (by which the Court meant the conviction of the applicant by the ICTY Appeals Chamber) and the sentence imposed on him.

  [1] Brown c. Royaume-Uni (déc.), n° 968/04, 26 octobre 2004.

• EGMR, 02.09.2025 - 42341/21

  YALAHOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  This outcome was consistent with the Court's decisions in Ganusauskas v. Lithuania ((dec.), no. 47922/99, 7 September 1999) and Brown v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 968/04, 26 October 2004), and the decision of the Supreme Court in West was per incuriam (that is, lacking due regard to the law or the facts) so far as it involved holding (or assuming) that Article 5 § 4 was engaged.

  Judge Pinto de Albuquerque indicated in his Concurring Opinion that he was unable to see any distinction between Brown v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 968/04, 26 October 2004) and Etute.

• EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 6017/11

  KRAJISNIK v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Where an applicant is convicted and sentenced by a competent court to a determinate term of imprisonment for the purposes of punishment, the review of the lawfulness of detention required by Article 5 § 4 is incorporated in the decision depriving the applicant of his liberty at the close of the judicial proceedings (see De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium, 18 June 1971, § 76, Series A no. 12; Mansell v. the United Kingdom, no. 32072/96, Commission decision of 2 July 1997, unreported; Brown v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 968/04, 26 October 2004; and Iorgov v. Bulgaria (no. 2), no. 36295/02, § 72, 2 September 2010).