Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GRAUSLYS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. c, Art. 5 Abs. 3, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 41, Art. 57 MRK
  Violation of Art. 5-1 with regard to the intitial period No violation of Art. 5-1 with regard to the subsequent period No violation of Art. 5-3 Violation of Art. 5-4 Violation of Art. 6-1 Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed Non-pecuniary damage - financial award ...

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 14.09.1999 - 36743/97
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 36743/97

Wird zitiert von ... (11)

• EGMR, 27.01.2009 - 1704/06

  RAMISHVILI AND KOKHREIDZE v. GEORGIA

  Detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period of time without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, amongst others, Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 32-36, 8 July 2008; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000-IX; Grauslys v. Lithuania, no. 36743/97, §§ 39-41, 10 October 2000; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III; Khudoyorov, cited above, §§ 146-147).
• EGMR, 09.11.2010 - 37138/06

  FARHAD ALIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  It has held that detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, among other cases, Baranowski, cited above, §§ 53-57, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-63, ECHR 2000-IX; Grauslys v. Lithuania, no. 36743/97, §§ 39-40, 10 October 2000; and Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 33-36, 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 13.01.2009 - 37048/04

  GIORGI NIKOLAISHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period of time without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, amongst others, Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 32-36, 8 July 2008; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-64, ECHR 2000-IX; Grauslys v. Lithuania, no. 36743/97, §§ 39-41, 10 October 2000; Baranowski, cited above, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146-147, ECHR 2005-X).

 
• EGMR, 09.12.2010 - 16966/06

  MURADVERDIYEV v. AZERBAIJAN

  It has held that detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period of time without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and the protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, among other cases, Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-57, ECHR 2000-III; Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 60-63, ECHR 2000-IX; Grauslys v. Lithuania, no. 36743/97, §§ 39-40, 10 October 2000; and Gigolashvili v. Georgia, no. 18145/05, §§ 33-36, 8 July 2008).
• EGMR, 08.07.2008 - 18145/05

  GIGOLASHVILI v. GEORGIA

  Detaining defendants without a specific legal basis or clear rules governing their situation - with the result that they may be deprived of their liberty for an unlimited period of time without judicial authorisation - is incompatible with the principles of legal certainty and protection from arbitrariness, which are common threads throughout the Convention and the rule of law (see, among others, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 57-64, ECHR 2000-IX; Stasaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, §§ 56-61, 21 March 2002; Grauslys v. Lithuania, no. 36743/97, §§ 39-41, 10 October 2000; Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 53-58, ECHR 2000-III; Khudoyorov v. Russia, no. 6847/02, §§ 146, ECHR 2005-... (extracts)).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 61005/00

  KORNAKOVS c. LETTONIE

  La Cour rappelle que, dans une série d'affaires impliquant la Lituanie, elle a conclu à l'existence d'une violation de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention du fait de l'application similaire d'une disposition du droit lituanien (voir, en sus de l'arrêt Jecius précité, Grauslys c. Lituanie, no 36743/97, §§ 39-41, 10 octobre 2000, Butkevicius c. Lituanie, no 48297/99, §§ 36-39, CEDH 2002-II, et Stasaitis c. Lituanie, no 47679/99, §§ 58-61, 21 mars 2002).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 64846/01

  MOISEJEVS c. LETTONIE

  La Cour rappelle que, dans une série d'affaires impliquant la Lituanie, elle a conclu à l'existence d'une violation de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention du fait de l'application similaire d'une disposition du droit lituanien (voir, en sus de l'arrêt Jecius précité, Grauslys c. Lituanie, no 36743/97, §§ 39-41, 10 octobre 2000, Butkevicius c. Lituanie, no 48297/99, §§ 36-39, CEDH 2002-II, et Stasaitis c. Lituanie, no 47679/99, §§ 58-61, 21 mars 2002).
• EGMR, 15.06.2006 - 70923/01

  JURJEVS c. LETTONIE

  La Cour rappelle enfin que, dans une série d'affaires impliquant la Lituanie, elle a conclu à l'existence d'une violation de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention du fait de l'application similaire d'une disposition du droit lituanien (voir, en sus de l'arrêt Jecius précité, Grauslys c. Lituanie, no 36743/97, §§ 39-41, 10 octobre 2000, Butkevicius c. Lituanie, no 48297/99, §§ 36-39, CEDH 2002-II, et Stasaitis c. Lituanie, no 47679/99, §§ 58-61, 21 mars 2002).
• EGMR, 26.11.2009 - 19257/03

  KORIYSKI c. BULGARIE

  La Cour rappelle que l'article 5 § 4 exige des tribunaux saisis d'une demande de libération, entre autres, d'examiner la question de savoir s'il existe des raisons plausibles de soupçonner le détenu de la commission d'une infraction pénale (Grauslys c. Lituanie, no 36743/97, § 53, 10 octobre 2000).
• EGMR, 22.10.2009 - 36275/02

  STOYAN DIMITROV c. BULGARIE

  La Cour rappelle d'emblée que l'article 5 § 4 exige des tribunaux saisis d'une demande de libération, entre autres, d'examiner la question de savoir s'il existe des raisons plausibles de soupçonner le détenu de la commission d'une infraction pénale (Grauslys c. Lituanie, no 36743/97, § 53, 10 octobre 2000).
• EGMR, 23.04.2009 - 14387/03

  RANGELOV c. BULGARIE