In [case], the ECtHR held that detention after arrest of four days and six hours violated the ECHR, art 5(3) in that the individual had not been brought 'promptly' before a judge. This seems to suggest that, while this question should be judged in the context of the particular case, there are some periods of delay the court will always hold to be excessive.
Answer
Brogan v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 117
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In [case], the ECtHR held that detention after arrest of four days and six hours violated the ECHR, art 5(3) in that the individual had not been brought 'promptly' before a judge. This seems to suggest that, while this question should be judged in the context of the particular case, there are some periods of delay the court will always hold to be excessive.
Answer
?
Tags
#freedom-of-person #human-rights #public
Question
In [case], the ECtHR held that detention after arrest of four days and six hours violated the ECHR, art 5(3) in that the individual had not been brought 'promptly' before a judge. This seems to suggest that, while this question should be judged in the context of the particular case, there are some periods of delay the court will always hold to be excessive.
Answer
Brogan v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 117
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it In Brogan v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 117, the ECtHR held that detention after arrest of four days and six hours violated the ECHR, art 5(3) in that the individual had not been brought 'promptly' before a judge. This seems t
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.