Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=16.01.2001&Aktenzeichen=49098/99
Timestamp: 2019-05-25 04:22:47
Document Index: 220451260

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 5', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 35', 'Art. 35', '§ 47', '§ 47', '§ 47', '§ 47', '§ 82', '§ 47', '§ 59', '§ 132', '§ 82', '§ 132', '§ 82', '§ 78', '§ 132', '§ 47']

EGMR, 16.01.2001 - 49098/99 - dejure.org
EGMR, 16.01.2001 - 49098/99
https://dejure.org/2001,40480
EGMR, 16.01.2001 - 49098/99 (https://dejure.org/2001,40480)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16.01.2001 - 49098/99 (https://dejure.org/2001,40480)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 16. Januar 2001 - 49098/99 (https://dejure.org/2001,40480)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2001,40480) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
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. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1 MRK
The fact that certain flaws in the procedure were found on appeal does not in itself mean that the detention was unlawful (see Gaidjurgis v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 49098/99, 16 January 2001; Benham, cited above, § 47; cf.
EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05
The fact that certain flaws in the procedure were found on appeal does not in itself mean that the detention was unlawful (see Gaidjurgis v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 49098/99, 16 January 2001; Benham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, § 47).
At the same time, it is again reiterated that the fact that certain flaws in the procedure were found on appeal does not in itself mean that the detention was unlawful (see Gaidjurgis v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 49098/99, 16 January 2001, and Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 47, Reports 1996-III).
Par ailleurs, à supposer que la cour militaire d'appel ait entendu modifier la base légale du placement en détention provisoire du requérant pour se référer à l'article 148 d) du CPP, il convient de noter qu'elle n'a fourni aucun fait ou motif concret à l'appui de son affirmation (voir, a contrario, Gaidjurgis c. Lituanie (déc.), no 49098/99, 16 janvier 2001).
EGMR, 14.06.2016 - 35919/05
BIRULEV AND SHISHKIN v. RUSSIA
As regards the second applicant's arguments that the detention order of 13 April 2005 had not expressly mentioned any "exceptional circumstances", the Court reiterates that the absence of explicit reference to certain provisions of domestic legislation or of use of certain terms does not in itself mean that a detention order is unlawful (compare with Gaidjurgis v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 49098/99, 16 January 2001, where the formal grounds for remanding an applicant in custody were found to be incorrect under domestic law and were amended on appeal, but where, in view of the weighty reasons adduced by the domestic courts, the relevant detention was considered to be lawful and in compliance with Article 5 of the Convention).
EGMR, 21.06.2011 - 57180/09
The fact that certain flaws in the procedure were found on appeal does not in itself mean that the detention was unlawful (see Gaidjurgis v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 49098/99, 16 January 2001; Benham v. the United Kingdom, 10 June 1996, § 47, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III; and Liu, cited above, § 82).
It has not therefore been established that, in extending the applicant's detention after 16 June 2004, the domestic courts acted in bad faith, or that they neglected to attempt to apply the relevant legislation correctly (see Gaidjurgis v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 49098/99, 16 January 2001, and Benham, cited above, § 47; compare also Bozano v. France, 18 December 1986, § 59, Series A no. 111).
Cette défaillance procédurale ne signifie pas, cependant, que la détention était illégale ou que le titre ordonnant la privation de liberté était prima facie invalide (voir, mutatis mutandis, Gaidjurgis c. Lituanie (déc.), no 49098/99, 16 janvier 2001 ; Khudoyorov précité, § 132 ; Liu et Liu précité, § 82).
Ceci ne signifie pas, cependant, que la détention était illégale ou que le titre ordonnant la privation de liberté était invalide ou que les arrêtés d'expulsion sur lesquels ce titre se fondait étaient prima facie invalides (voir, mutatis mutandis, Gaidjurgis c. Lituanie (déc.), no 49098/99, 16 janvier 2001 ; Khudoyorov précité, § 132 ; Liu et Liu précité, § 82 ; Marturana c. Italie, no 63154/00, § 78, 4 mars 2008).
The fact that "certain flaws in the procedure were found on appeal does not in itself mean that the detention was unlawful" (Khudoyorov, cited above, § 132, see also Gaidjurgis v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 49098/99, 16 January 2001 and Benham, cited above, § 47).
EGMR, 28.09.1999 - 39972/98
PAPADOPOULOS v. CYPRUS