Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=9787/82
Timestamp: 2019-07-16 13:22:40+00:00

Document:
Rechtsprechung: 9787/82 - dejure.org
Weitere Entscheidungen unten: EGMR, 05.10.1988 | EKMR, 17.01.1984 | EGMR, 26.05.1986
EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82
https://dejure.org/1987,6350
EGMR, 02.03.1987 - 9787/82 (https://dejure.org/1987,6350)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02.03.1987 - 9787/82 (https://dejure.org/1987,6350)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 02. März 1987 - 9787/82 (https://dejure.org/1987,6350)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1987,6350) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 4 MRK
Violation de l'Art. 5-4 Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 Satisfaction équitable réservée (französisch)
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. b MRK
Violation of Art. 5-4 No violation of Art. 5-1 Just satisfaction reserved (englisch)
Weeks gegen Vereinigtes Königreich
EKMR, 17.01.1984 - 9787/82
EGMR, 26.05.1986 - 9787/82
EGMR, 05.10.1988 - 9787/82
NJW 1989, 647
Kurz gefasst muss zwischen der Verurteilung und der in Rede stehenden Freiheitsentziehung ein hinreichender Kausalzusammenhang bestehen (siehe Weeks ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, 2. März 1987, Rdnr. 42, Serie A Band 114;… Stafford ./. Vereinigtes Königreich [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 46295/99, Rdnr. 64, ECHR 2002-IV;… Waite ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 53236/99, Rdnr. 65, 10. Dezember 2002;… und Kafkaris ./. Zypern [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 21906/04, Rdnr. 117, ECHR 2008-...).
Vielmehr kommt es darauf an, dass sich die Freiheitsentziehung in dem durch das zum Zeitpunkt der Verurteilung geltende Gesetz und die von einem zuständigen Gericht ausgesprochene Verurteilung gesteckten Rahmen hält (vgl. EGMR…, Urteil vom 24. Juni 1982, Beschwerde-Nr. 7906/77, Van Droogenbroeck ./. Belgien, Rn. 39; ähnlich im Hinblick auf den Widerruf einer unter Bewährung erfolgten Entlassung eines Straftäters EGMR, Urteil vom 2. März 1987, Beschwerde-Nr. 9787/82, Weeks ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Rn. 42 f., 49 f.;… vgl. ferner Urteil vom 17. Dezember 2009, Beschwerde-Nr. 19359/04, M. ./. Deutschland, Rn. 99 f.).
Furthermore, Article 5 § 4 requires that the court invited to rule on the lawfulness of the detention should have jurisdiction to order release if the detention is unlawful (see Weeks v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 2 February 1987, Series A no. 114, p. 30, § 61).
Kurz gefasst muss zwischen der Verurteilung und der betreffenden Freiheitsentziehung ein hinreichender Kausalzusammenhang bestehen (siehe Weeks ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, 2. März 1987, Rdnr. 42, Serie A Band 114;… Stafford ./. Vereinigtes Königreich [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 46295/99, Rdnr. 64, ECHR 2002-IV;… Waite ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Individualbeschwerde Nr. 53236/99, Rdnr. 65, 10. Dezember 2002;… Kafkaris ./. Zypern [GK], Individualbeschwerde Nr. 21906/04, Rdnr. 117, ECHR 2008-...;… und M. ./. Deutschland, a.a.O., Rdnr. 88).
EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85
In addition to his right to make representations to the Parole Board under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (see paragraphs 56-59 above), a prisoner detained pursuant to a discretionary life sentence may take proceedings in the High Court to obtain the judicial review of any decision of the Parole Board or of the Home Secretary on the ground that it is tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety (see judgment of 2 March 1987 in the Weeks case, Series A no. 114, pp. 18-19, paras. 30-31).
They maintained that they had received discretionary life sentences because, as in the Weeks case (judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 114, pp. 24-25, para. 46), the courts considered them to be mentally unstable and dangerous and that such a sentence would enable the Secretary of State to monitor their progress and decide when it was safe to release them.
In subsequent cases the Court made it clear that this finding related only to "the initial decision depriving a person of his liberty" and did not purport "to deal with an ensuing period of detention in which new issues affecting the lawfulness of the detention might arise" (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Weeks judgment, Series A no. 114, p. 28, para. 56).
1 (a) (art. 5-1-a) (see, inter alia, the Van Droogenbroeck judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, pp. 23-27, paras. 44-49, the above-mentioned Weeks judgment, Series A no. 114, pp. 28-29, paras. 55-59, and the E. v. Norway judgment of 29 August 1990, Series A no. 181-A, pp. 21-22, para. 50).
Mr Weeks received a discretionary life sentence not because of the gravity of his offence but because of his dangerous and unstable personality and to enable the Home Secretary to monitor his progress and release him when he was no longer judged to represent a danger to the community (see Series A no. 114, especially at pp. 10-11, paras. 14-15).
4 (art. 5-4) does not guarantee a right to judicial control of such scope as to empower the "court" on all aspects of the case, including questions of expediency, to substitute its own discretion for that of the decision-making authority; the review should, nevertheless, be wide enough to bear on those conditions which, according to the Convention, are essential for the lawful detention of a person subject to the special type of deprivation of liberty ordered against these three applicants (see, inter alia, the above-mentioned Weeks judgment, Series A no. 114, p. 29, para. 59, and the above-mentioned E v. Norway judgment, Series A no. 181-A, pp. 21-22, para. 50).
The reviewing "court" must not have 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 Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 200, Series A no. 25; Weeks v. the United Kingdom, 2 March 1987, § 61, Series A no. 114; Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 130, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; and A. and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 3455/05, § 202, 19 February 2009).
The reviewing "court" must not have merely advisory functions but must have the competence to "decide" the "lawfulness" of the detention and to order release if the detention is unlawful (Ireland v. the United Kingdom, cited above, § 200; Weeks v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, § 61, Series A no. 114; Chahal, cited above, § 130).
Einer Anwendung von Art. 5 Abs. 1 Satz 2 Buchstabe a EMRK könnte aber auch bei Neufällen entgegenstehen, dass es an einem hinreichenden Kausalzusammenhang zwischen Verurteilung und Sanktion fehlt (vgl. EGMR…, Urteil vom 24. Juni 1982, Beschwerde-Nr. 7906/77, Van Droogenbroeck ./. Belgien, Rn. 39; EGMR, Urteil vom 2. März 1987, Beschwerde-Nr. 9787/82, Weeks ./. Vereinigtes Königreich, Rn. 42 f., 49 f.; EGMR…, Urteil vom 17. Dezember 2009, Beschwerde-Nr. 19359/04, M. ./. Deutschland, Rn. 88; EGMR…, Urteil vom 21. Oktober 2010, Beschwerde-Nr. 24478/03, G. ./. Deutschland, Rn. 44, 50; EGMR…, Urteil vom 19. April 2012, Beschwerde-Nr. 61272/09, B. ./. Deutschland, Rn. 87; EGMR…, Urteil vom 13. Januar 2011, Beschwerde-Nr. 6587/04, Haidn ./. Deutschland, Rn. 84; zu § 66b Abs. 3 StGB: EGMR…, Urteil vom 28. Juni 2012, a.a.O., Rn. 90).
EKMR, 06.09.1988 - 11787/85
THYNNE, WILSON, WEEKS and GUNNEL v. the UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 21.10.2010 - 24478/03
Vereinbarkeit der Sicherungsverwahrung mit dem Recht auf Freiheit und Sicherheit …
EGMR, 09.10.2003 - 39665/98
Recht auf ein faires Verfahren (Begriff der strafrechtlichen Anklage; …
EKMR, 09.09.1998 - 38697/97
EGMR, 29.01.2013 - 1497/10
BETTERIDGE v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EGMR, 22.01.2013 - 2894/08
DÖRR v. GERMANY
EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 28578/03
EKMR, 30.08.1994 - 20560/92
KOSKINEN v. FINLAND
EGMR, 05.11.2002 - 43191/98
LAIDIN c. FRANCE
EKMR, 07.03.1990 - 13669/88
EGMR - 25119/09 (anhängig)
EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 1997/11
EGMR, 23.10.2012 - 498/10
CIOK v. POLAND
EGMR, 08.02.2011 - 44153/06
EGMR, 27.06.2006 - 22318/02
EGMR, 27.10.2005 - 68673/01
EGMR, 27.05.2004 - 59512/00
EGMR, 22.05.2003 - 67385/01
EGMR, 29.05.2001 - 46295/99
EGMR, 05.12.2000 - 42775/98
ÜKÜNC and GÜNES v. TURKEY
EGMR, 21.03.2000 - 40787/98
EGMR, 24.08.1998 - 23824/94
SOUMARE c. FRANCE
EKMR, 10.09.1997 - 27154/95
EKMR, 30.06.1994 - 23389/94
EKMR, 30.06.1994 - 21928/93
EKMR, 09.05.1994 - 19774/92
SAMPSON v. CYPRUS
EGMR, 24.06.2014 - 27783/09
E.B. v. AUSTRIA
EGMR, 30.11.2004 - 1190/04
EGMR, 27.08.2002 - 53741/00
EGMR, 30.01.2001 - 43923/98
TEZEL v. TURKEY
EGMR, 07.12.1999 - 44071/98
EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 32072/96
MANSELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 02.07.1997 - 29328/95
EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 29193/95
COMERFORD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 15.05.1996 - 25736/94
BIRINCI v. AUSTRIA
EKMR, 31.08.1994 - 23156/94
EKMR, 14.10.1992 - 18757/91
D.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 01.07.1992 - 16791/90
EKMR, 02.09.1991 - 16791/90
EGMR, 30.08.1990 - 9511/81
McCALLUM c. ROYAUME-UNI
EKMR, 01.07.1998 - 34733/97
A.N. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 01.07.1998 - 34127/96
D.W. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 01.07.1998 - 32875/96
RYAN v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 01.07.1998 - 32003/96
BROMFIELD v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 09.04.1997 - 26753/95
HELIN v. FINLAND
EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 25895/94
TOMSETT v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 28.11.1995 - 24835/94
BAXTER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 18.10.1995 - 21848/93
T.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 14.10.1991 - 13195/87
P., K., and G. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
EKMR, 06.09.1990 - 13904/88
https://dejure.org/1988,6700
EGMR, 05.10.1988 - 9787/82 (https://dejure.org/1988,6700)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05.10.1988 - 9787/82 (https://dejure.org/1988,6700)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 05. Januar 1988 - 9787/82 (https://dejure.org/1988,6700)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1988,6700) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
WEEKS c. ROYAUME-UNI (ARTICLE 50)
Art. 41, Art. 39 MRK
Frais et dépens - radiation du rôle (règlement amiable) Dommage matériel - réparation pécuniaire Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire (französisch)
Costs and expenses - struck out of the list (friendly settlement) Pecuniary damage - financial award Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (englisch)
Issues akin to those arising in the present case were examined by the Court in its Brogan and Others judgment of 29 November 1988 (Series A no. 145-B) where it held that there had been a violation of Article 5 para.
5 (art. 5-5) in the case of each applicant (Series A no. 145-B, pp. 30-35, paras. 55-62 and 66-67).
The applicants, Mr Brannigan and Mr McBride, were detained under section 12 (1) (b) of the 1984 Act in early January 1989 very shortly after the Government's derogation of 23 December 1988 under Article 15 (art. 15) of the Convention, which itself was made soon after the Court's judgment of 29 November 1988 in the case of Brogan and Others (judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B).
The Court recalls that judicial control of interferences by the executive with the individual's right to liberty provided for by Article 5 (art. 5) is implied by one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society, namely the rule of law (see the above-mentioned Brogan and Others judgment, Series A no. 145-B, p. 32, para. 58).
Moreover, these special difficulties were recognised in its above-mentioned Brogan and Others judgment (see Series A no. 145-B, p. 33, para. 61).
There is no dispute that this remedy was open to the applicants had they or their legal advisers chosen to avail themselves of it and that it provides an important measure of protection against arbitrary detention (see the above-mentioned Brogan and Others judgment, Series A no. 145-B, pp. 34-35, paras. 63-65).
4 (art. 5-4) of the Convention (Series A no. 145-B, pp. 34-35, paras. 63-65).
It was therefore competent to examine whether the derogation from the guarantees of Article 5 (art. 5), following a judgment of the European Court finding on similar facts a violation of that Article (art. 5) (Case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B) was indeed in conformity with Article 15 (art. 15) (see the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25).
The position I have taken in the case of Brogan and Others (Series A no. 145-B) - a position which I still maintain - explains why I have voted for finding that the derogation lodged by the United Kingdom satisfies the requirements of Article 15 (art. 15) of the Convention: in this respect I would compare what I have said in paragraph 12 of my dissenting opinion in the case of Brogan and Others with paragraphs 60-67 of the present judgment.
[ï?ª]ï?ª Series A no. 145, p. 32, para.
Such automatic expedited judicial scrutiny provides an important measure of protection against arbitrary behaviour, incommunicado detention and ill-treatment (see, among other authorities, Brannigan and McBride v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 26 May 1993, Series A no. 258-B, pp. 55-56, §§ 62-63; Aquilina v. Malta [GC], no. 25642/94, § 49, ECHR 1999?III; Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom , judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145?B, pp. 31-32, § 58; and Dikme v. Turkey , no. 20869/92, § 66, ECHR 2000?VIII).
"106. The Court has already noted on a number of occasions that the investigation of terrorist offences undoubtedly presents the authorities with special problems ( Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom , 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145-B, p. 33, § 61; Murray v. the United Kingdom , 28 October 1994, Series A no. 300-A, p. 27, § 58; and Aksoy v. Turkey, cited above, p. 2282, § 78).
Der Gerichtshof erinnert daran, dass Artikel 5 Abs. 5 der Konvention einen unmittelbaren Entschädigungsanspruch bewirkt, sofern die nationalen Gerichte oder die Konventionsorgane festgestellt haben, dass einem Beschwerdeführer unter Verletzung von Artikel 5 Absätze 1 bis 4 der Konvention die Freiheit entzogen worden war (siehe u. a. Rechtssache Brogan und andere ./. Vereinigtes Königreich , Urteil vom 29. November 1988, Serie A, Bd. 145, S. 35, Nr. 67).
In its Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment (29 November 1988, Series A no. 145), the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention in the case of all four applicants, who had been detained under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1984, which was the predecessor provision of section 14 of the 1989 Act.
In the applicant's submission, the respondent Government cannot rely on the derogation to this safeguard which they introduced on 23 December 1988 following the Court's judgment in the Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom case (29 November 1988, Series A no. 145), since the derogation must be considered incompatible with Article 15 of the Convention, having regard to the radical transformation in the security situation in Northern Ireland at the material time.
Ce constat ne préjuge pas de la compétence de la Cour pour accorder une satisfaction équitable pécuniaire au titre de l'article 50 (art. 50) (arrêt Brogan et autres du 29 novembre 1988, série A no 145-B, p. 35, § 67).
Or le concept de "lawfulness" a la même portée au paragraphe 1 (art. 5-1) qu'au paragraphe 4 (art. 5-4) (voir notamment l'arrêt Brogan et autres du 29 novembre 1988, série A no 145, pp. 34-35, § 65) et le contrôle que prévoit celui-ci doit présenter une ampleur telle qu'il puisse s'étendre à chacune des conditions indispensables à la régularité de la détention d'un individu au regard du paragraphe 1 (art. 5-1) (voir notamment l'arrêt Ashingdane du 28 mai 1985, série A no 93, p. 23, § 52).
The Court recalls that Article 5 § 4 requires the availability of a remedy allowing a competent court to examine not only compliance with the applicable domestic rules but also the reasonableness of the suspicion grounding arrest and the legitimacy of the purpose pursued by that arrest and the on-going detention (Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145, pp. 34-35, § 65).
However, the Court considers that in view of the finding that there was no violation of Article 5 § 4 in the present case, it is not necessary to inquire whether the less strict requirements of Article 13 of the Convention were complied with (Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145, p. 36, § 68).
It reiterates that, in the case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom (29 November 1988, § 62, Series A no. 145 B), it found that detention in police custody which had lasted four days and six hours without judicial control fell outside the strict time constraints of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
La Cour a déjà maintes fois confirmé par le passé qu'une période de garde à vue de quatre jours et six heures sans contrôle judiciaire va au-delà des strictes limites de temps fixées par l'article 5 § 3, même quand elle a pour but de prémunir la collectivité dans son ensemble contre le terrorisme (voir, parmi d'autres, Brogan et autres c. Royaume-Uni, arrêt du 29 novembre 1988, série A no 145, p. 33, § 62).
EGMR, 08.04.2008 - 5337/02
It reiterates that, in the case of Brogan and Others v. the United Kingdom (judgment of 29 November 1988, Series A no. 145 B, pp. 33-34, § 62), it found that detention in police custody which had lasted four days and six hours without judicial control fell outside the strict time constraints of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, even though its purpose was to protect the community as a whole against terrorism (see, amongst others, Keklik and Others, § 41, cited above).
EGMR, 25.04.2006 - 77649/01
EGMR, 11.12.2018 - 11395/08
EGMR, 05.12.2006 - 74318/01
RESUL SADAK AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
EGMR, 31.10.2006 - 13007/02
SAHIN AND SURGEC v. TURKEY
EGMR, 04.05.2006 - 59246/00
EGMR, 14.03.2000 - 37555/97
EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 47922/99
GANUSAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA
EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 11564/02
HACI ZEKI UZUN v. TURKEY
EGMR, 03.05.2007 - 76106/01
BAZ AND OTHERS v. TURKEY
EGMR, 16.01.2007 - 77191/01
EGMR, 11.04.2006 - 4528/02
EKMR, 04.09.1996 - 28188/95
TYRRELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM
https://dejure.org/1984,12357
EKMR, 17.01.1984 - 9787/82 (https://dejure.org/1984,12357)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 17.01.1984 - 9787/82 (https://dejure.org/1984,12357)
EKMR, Entscheidung vom 17. Januar 1984 - 9787/82 (https://dejure.org/1984,12357)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1984,12357) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1 MRK
https://dejure.org/1986,29753
EGMR, 26.05.1986 - 9787/82 (https://dejure.org/1986,29753)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26.05.1986 - 9787/82 (https://dejure.org/1986,29753)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 26. Mai 1986 - 9787/82 (https://dejure.org/1986,29753)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/1986,29753) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

References: Art. 5
 Art. 5
 Art. 5
 Art. 5

Art. 5
 Art. 5
 Art. 5
 Art. 5
 Art. 5
 Art. 5
 Art. 5
 § 4
 § 61
 § 200
 § 61
 § 130
 § 202
 § 200
 § 61
 § 130
 Art. 5
 § 66

EGMR 

Art. 41
 Art. 39
 § 49
 § 58
 § 66
 § 61
 § 58
 § 78
 § 3
 § 67
 § 65
 § 52
 § 4
 § 65
 § 4
 § 68
 § 62
 § 3
 § 3
 § 62
 § 62
 § 3
 § 41

Art. 5
 Art. 5
 Art. 5
 Art. 5