Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  GANUSAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1 Buchst. a, Art. 5 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 6 MRK
  Inadmissible (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (7)Zitiert selbst (3)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 24.06.1982 - 7906/77

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 47922/99

  A penalty involving deprivation of liberty which the offender must undergo for a period specified in the court decision is justified at the outset by the original conviction and appeal proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, the Van Droogenbroeck v. Belgium judgment of 24 June 1982, Series A no. 50, pp. 21-22, §§ 39-40).
• EGMR, 25.10.1990 - 11787/85

  THYNNE, WILSON AND GUNNELL v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 47922/99

  Nothing indicates that the causal link between the conviction and the re-detention was broken (see, by contrast, the Weeks v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 145-A; the Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A; the Hussain v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I; the Singh v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1996, Reports 1996-I).
• EGMR, 05.10.1988 - 9787/82

  Auszug aus EGMR, 07.09.1999 - 47922/99

  Nothing indicates that the causal link between the conviction and the re-detention was broken (see, by contrast, the Weeks v. the United Kingdom judgment of 2 March 1987, Series A no. 145-A; the Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell v. the United Kingdom judgment of 25 October 1990, Series A no. 190-A; the Hussain v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-I; the Singh v. the United Kingdom judgment of 21 February 1996, Reports 1996-I).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 02.09.2025 - 42341/21

  YALAHOW v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

  This outcome was consistent with the Court's decisions in Ganusauskas v. Lithuania ((dec.), no. 47922/99, 7 September 1999) and Brown v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 968/04, 26 October 2004), and the decision of the Supreme Court in West was per incuriam (that is, lacking due regard to the law or the facts) so far as it involved holding (or assuming) that Article 5 § 4 was engaged.

  Judge Kūris was even more explicit in his Concurring Opinion, observing that the judgment of the Court created an unresolved conflict with the broad principles of Brown (cited above) and Ganusauskas v. Lithuania ((dec.), no. 47922/99, 7 September 1999).

• EGMR, 30.01.2018 - 18233/16

  ETUTE c. LUXEMBOURG

  For instance, in the important case of Ganusauskas v. Lithuania ((dec.), no. 47922/99, 7 September 1999), the Court dealt with the applicant's "renewed" imprisonment.
• EGMR, 05.01.2006 - 74357/01

  KUOLELIS v. LITHUANIA

  In particular, Article 6 is not applicable to proceedings of the kind requested by the first applicant, as they do not involve the determination of "a criminal charge" (see Ganusauskas v. Lithuania (dec), no. 47922/99, 7.9.1999).

• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 59304/00

  JANKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Furthermore, Article 6 is not applicable in connection with any proceedings which do not involve the determination of "a criminal charge" against the applicant (see Ganusauskas v. Lithuania, no. 47922/99, 7.9.1999).
• EGMR, 20.09.2016 - 13546/06

  [ENG]

  There is nothing to indicate that the causal link between the conviction and the re-detention was broken (see Ganusauskas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 47922/99, 7 September 1999, with further references).
• EGMR, 12.12.2006 - 34096/02

  ZIVULINSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Moreover, Article 6 is not applicable to parole proceedings as they do not involve the determination of a criminal charge, or civil right or obligation (Ganusauskas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 47922/99, 7 September 1999).
• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 63767/00

  PUZINAS v. LITHUANIA

  In particular, Article 6 is not applicable to proceedings of the kind requested by the applicant, as they do not involve the determination of "a criminal charge" (see Ganusauskas v. Lithuania (dec), no. 47922/99, 7.9.1999).