Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  D.R. v. LITHUANIA

  Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Procedure prescribed by law;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind) (englisch)

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  D.R. v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. e MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (8)

• EGMR, 07.01.2016 - 23279/14

  Therapieunterbringung (Sicherungsverwahrung) bei schwerer psychischer Störung …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 691/15

  A mental disorder may be considered to be of a degree warranting compulsory confinement if it is found that the confinement of the person concerned is necessary as the person needs therapy, medication or other clinical treatment to cure or alleviate his or her condition, but also where the person needs control and supervision to prevent him or her, for example, causing harm to him or herself or other individuals (see Witold Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, § 60, ECHR 2000-III; Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no. 50272/99, § 52, ECHR 2003-IV; and Bergmann v. Germany, no. 23279/14, § 97, 7 January 2016).
• EGMR, 24.10.1979 - 6301/73

  WINTERWERP v. THE NETHERLANDS

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 691/15

  The Court reiterates that the term "persons of unsound mind" in sub-paragraph (e) of Article 5 § 1 does not lend itself to precise definition, since its meaning continually evolves as research in psychiatry progresses (see Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 37, Series A no. 33; Rakevich v. Russia, no. 58973/00, § 26, 28 October 2003; and Anatoliy Rudenko v. Ukraine, no. 50264/08, § 102, 17 April 2014).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 36760/06

  STANEV c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 691/15

  An individual cannot be deprived of his or her liberty on the basis of being of "unsound mind" unless the following three minimum conditions are fulfilled: firstly, he or she must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is to say a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 39; Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 114, ECHR 2008; and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012).

 
• EGMR, 27.03.2008 - 44009/05

  SHTUKATUROV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 691/15

  An individual cannot be deprived of his or her liberty on the basis of being of "unsound mind" unless the following three minimum conditions are fulfilled: firstly, he or she must reliably be shown to be of unsound mind, that is to say a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise; secondly, the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement; thirdly, the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistence of such a disorder (see Winterwerp, cited above, § 39; Shtukaturov v. Russia, no. 44009/05, § 114, ECHR 2008; and Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 36760/06, § 145, ECHR 2012).
• EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97

  JECIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 691/15

  "Quality of law" in this sense implies that where a national law authorises deprivation of liberty it must be sufficiently accessible, precise and foreseeable in its application, in order to avoid all risk of arbitrariness (see Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX; Mooren v. Germany [GC], no. 11364/03, § 76, 9 July 2009; and Kakabadze and Others v. Georgia, no. 1484/07, § 62, 2 October 2012).
• EGMR, 03.07.2012 - 34806/04

  X v. FINLAND

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 691/15

  Firstly, Articles 208 and 209 of the CCP do not contain any provisions allowing a court to authorise deprivation of liberty for the purpose of conducting a psychiatric assessment (see paragraphs 41 and 42 above; compare and contrast X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 152, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and Petukhova v. Russia, no. 28796/07, § 52, 2 May 2013).
• EGMR, 02.05.2013 - 28796/07

  PETUKHOVA v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 691/15

  Firstly, Articles 208 and 209 of the CCP do not contain any provisions allowing a court to authorise deprivation of liberty for the purpose of conducting a psychiatric assessment (see paragraphs 41 and 42 above; compare and contrast X v. Finland, no. 34806/04, § 152, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and Petukhova v. Russia, no. 28796/07, § 52, 2 May 2013).
• EGMR, 31.07.2012 - 13472/06

  LIUIZA v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 691/15

  The Government submitted that the legal basis for the deprivation of the applicant's liberty had been the Taurage District Court's order of 3 April 2014, authorising a psychiatric assessment under Articles 208 and 209 of the CCP (see paragraphs 13 and 62 above; compare and contrast Liuiza v. Lithuania, no. 13472/06, § 59, 31 July 2012, in which a psychiatric assessment was authorised under Article 141 of the CCP - see paragraph 44 above).

• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 2648/22

  T.A. v. ARMENIA

  Furthermore, the Court has previously noted in the context of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention that the detention of an individual is such a serious measure that it is only justified where other, less severe measures have been considered and found to be insufficient to safeguard the individual or public interest (see Ilnseher, cited above, § 137; D.R. v. Lithuania, no. 691/15, § 94, 26 June 2018).
• EGMR, 06.02.2024 - 59063/21

  M.P. v. LITHUANIA

  At least once every six months, the court must decide, on the basis of a report by the healthcare establishment, whether the compulsory treatment should be extended, discontinued or changed (see D.R. v. Lithuania, no. 691/15, § 46, 26 June 2018).
• EGMR, 30.03.2021 - 82087/17

  D.C. c. BELGIQUE

  À cet égard, il n'appartient pas à la Cour d'apprécier différentes expertises médicales se contredisant au sujet de l'état de santé du requérant, ce qui relèverait en premier lieu de la compétence du juge national ; en revanche, elle doit s'assurer que les juridictions internes, lorsqu'elles ont pris la décision litigieuse, avaient à leur disposition des éléments suffisants pour justifier l'internement du requérant (Herz, précité, § 51, Tupa c. République tchèque, no 39822/07, § 49, 26 mai 2011, Anatoliy Rudenko c. Ukraine, no 50264/08, § 100, 17 avril 2014, et D.R. c. Lituanie, no 691/15, § 85, 26 juin 2018).