Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T23:21:27.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European Court of Human Rights (Grand Chamber): Gäfgen v. Germany

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Antoine Buyse
Antoine Buyse*
Affiliation:
Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Utrecht University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 49 , Issue 6 , December 2010 , pp. 1597 - 1639
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

End notes

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the European Court of Human Rights website (visited Nov. 28, 2010) http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=868977&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&tabl.

1 Gäfgen v. Germany, 2010 Eur. Ct. H.R. 759 (June 1, 2010) [hereinafter Gäfgen].

2 See, e.g., T. v United Kingdom, App. No. 24724/94, Eur. Ct. H.R. (Dec. 16, 1999) (the parents of murdered British toddler Jamie Bulger were given permission to submit comments).

3 Jalloh v. Germany, App. No. 54810/00, Eur. Ct. H.R. (July 11, 2006).

4 Id. ¶ 105.

5 Gäfgen, ¶ 178.

6 Opuz v. Turkey, App. No. 33401/02, Eur. Ct. H.R. ¶ 163 (June 9, 2009).

1 Rectified on 3 June 2010: the name of Judge Kovler has been added.

2 However, with regard to Article 6 of the Convention, we consider, unlike the majority, that there was a violation of that Article, and we refer to the joint dissenting opinion of Judges Rozakis, Tulkens, Jebens, Ziemele, Bianku and Power.

3 G. KELLENS, Punir. Pénologie et droit des sanctions pénales, Liège, Editions juridiques de l’Université de Liège, 2000, pp. 59 et seq.; P. PONCELA, Droit de la peine, Paris, PUF, coll. Thémis, 2nd edition, 2001, pp. 458 et seq.

4 See Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140; Khan v. the United Kingdom, no. 35394/97, ECHR 2000-V; P.G. and J.H. v. the United Kingdom, no. 44787/98, ECHR 2001-IX; Allan v. the United Kingdom, no. 48539/99, ECHR 2002-IX; Perry v. the United Kingdom, no. 63737/00, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, ECHR 2006-IX; and Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, ECHR 2009- . . .

5 See Perry v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63737/00, 26 September 2002.

6 Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, §§ 63, 66, ECHR 2007-VIII.

7 Göçmen v. Turkey, no. 72000/01, §§ 74-75, 17 October 2006.

8 Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 99, ECHR 2006-IX.

9 Ibid., § 107.

10 Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 58, ECHR 2008- . . .

11 See, inter alia, Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 15 November 1996, § 79, Reports 1996-V; V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24888/94, § 69, ECHR 1999-IX; Ramirez Sanchez v. France [GC], no. 59450/00, § 116, ECHR 2006-IX, and Saadi v. Italy [GC], no. 37201/06, § 127, ECHR 2008- . . .

12 Rectified on 3 June 2010: the name of Judge Kovler has been added.