Volltextveröffentlichungen (3)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VALIULIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 41 MRK
  Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect) Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VALIULIENE v. LITHUANIA - [Deutsche Übersetzung] by the Austrian Institute for Human Rights (ÖIM)

  [DEU] Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

• juris(Abodienst) (Volltext/Leitsatz)

Kurzfassungen/Presse (2)

• RIS Bundeskanzleramt Österreich (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)
• institut-fuer-menschenrechte.de (Ausführliche Zusammenfassung)

  Valiuliene gegen Litauen

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Valiuliene v. Lithuania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07
• EGMR, 04.10.2017 - 33234/07

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (12)

• EGMR, 09.06.2009 - 33401/02

  Opuz ./. Türkei

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07

  The applicant argued that her complaints fell to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention, submitting that the ill-treatment she had been subjected to attained the minimum level of severity required by the Court's case-law (Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, § 161, ECHR 2009).

  Many important steps have been taken by international organisations (in both the United Nations and the Council of Europe framework) to combat violence against women, including domestic violence, to respond promptly to threats of domestic violence, to take preventive measures in this field and to provide effective and appropriate assistance to the victims of such crimes (see paragraphs 38-41 of the judgment; see also a summary of relevant international material in the Court's judgment in Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, §§ 72-86, ECHR 2009, in particular Recommendation Rec(2002)5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, of 30 April 2002, on the protection of women against violence).

  Lastly, the new instrument also took in account the Court's case-law on an enforceable and justiciable positive obligation to protect women from domestic violence, established in Kontrova v. Slovakia, no. 7510/04, 24 September 2007; Bevacqua and S v. Bulgaria, no. 71127/01, 12 September 2008; Branko Tomasic and Others v. Croatia, no. 46598/08, 14 October 2010; Opuz v. Turkey, no. 33401/02, 9 September 2009; E.S. and Others v. Slovakia, no. 8227/04, 15 December 2009; A. v. Croatia, no. 55164/08, 14 October 2010; and Hajduova v. Slovakia, no. 2660/03, 30 November 2010.

• EGMR, 04.12.2003 - 39272/98

  M.C. c. BULGARIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07

  Once the Court has found that the level of severity of violence inflicted by private individuals attracts protection under Article 3 of the Convention, its case-law is consistent and clear to the effect that this Article requires the implementation of adequate criminal-law mechanisms (see Beganovic, cited above, § 69; M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 151, ECHR 2003-XII).

  The Court used the findings of modern psychology to support a common European standard, for example, in M.C. v. Bulgaria, no. 39272/98, § 164, 4 December 2003.

• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07

  Treatment has been held by the Court to be "inhuman" because, inter alia, it was premeditated, was applied for hours at a stretch and caused either actual bodily injury or intense physical and mental suffering (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV).

  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, I think that the attacks against the applicant did not attain the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 (see, on this point Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV; Selmouni v. France, [GC], no. 25803/94, § 100, ECHR 1999-V; and contrast Beganovic, cited above, §§ 64-66, 68, and Opuz, cited above, §§ 9, 10, 13, 20, 23 and 161).

 
• EGMR, 20.06.2006 - 17209/02

  ZARB ADAMI c. MALTE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07

  On the evidential value of statistics, see Hoogendijk v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 58461/00, 6 January 2005, and Zarb Adami v. Malta, no. 17209/02, §§ 77-78, ECHR 2006-I. See also the CEDAW Concluding Observations on Lithuania, 2008, which expressed concern at the high prevalence of violence against women - particularly domestic violence - and at the insufficient number of crisis centres.
• EGMR, 22.10.2013 - 27920/08

  D.P. v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07

  [30] The ECHR has communicated another case concerning domestic violence - Praskeviciene v. Lithuania, No. 27920/08 - to the Government of the Republic of Lithuania; see Internet page of the Ministry of Justice - http://www.tm.lt/eztt/naujiena/154.
• EGMR, 25.04.1978 - 5856/72

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07

  Furthermore, the mere fact that the applicant had not suffered long­lasting or permanent injuries did not mean that the ill-treatment had failed to reach the level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3, because in Tyrer v. the United Kingdom (25 April 1978, § 33, Series A no. 26) the Court had found a violation of Article 3, even though "the applicant did not suffer any severe or long lasting physical effects".
• EGMR, 28.07.1999 - 25803/94

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07

  Turning to the circumstances of the present case, I think that the attacks against the applicant did not attain the minimum level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 (see, on this point Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 120, ECHR 2000-IV; Selmouni v. France, [GC], no. 25803/94, § 100, ECHR 1999-V; and contrast Beganovic, cited above, §§ 64-66, 68, and Opuz, cited above, §§ 9, 10, 13, 20, 23 and 161).
• EGMR, 25.03.1993 - 13134/87

  Zur "Einzelfallprüfung" und "geltungszeitlichen Interpretation" im Rahmen des …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07

  Accordingly, and referring to the Court's case-law on the subject, in my personal opinion, the applicant's complaint in connection with the physical attacks on her should have been examined under Article 8 of the Convention and the applicant's right to respect for her private life (see Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, cited above, §§ 66, 77-84; Sandra Jankovic v. Croatia, no. 38478/05, §§ 31, 44 and 45, 5 March 2009; Hajduová v. Slovakia, no. 2660/03, §§ 45-46, 30 November 2010; and, most recently, Kalucza v. Hungary, no. 57693/10, §§ 13, 14, 16, 23 and 42, 24 April 2012), as this concept, as the Court has previously held in various contexts, also includes a person's physical and psychological integrity (see X and Y v. the Netherlands, 26 March 1985, §§ 22 and 23, Series A no. 91; Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1993, § 36, Series A no. 247-C; and Sandra Jankovic, cited above, § 45).
• EGMR, 28.01.1994 - 17549/90

  HURTADO c. SUISSE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07

  Treatment has been considered "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority, capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, § 67, Series A no. 280-A; and Wieser v. Austria, no. 2293/03, § 36, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 22.02.2007 - 2293/03

  WIESER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 26.03.2013 - 33234/07

  Treatment has been considered "degrading" when it was such as to arouse in its victims feelings of fear, anguish and inferiority, capable of humiliating and debasing them and possibly breaking their physical or moral resistance (see Hurtado v. Switzerland, 28 January 1994, § 67, Series A no. 280-A; and Wieser v. Austria, no. 2293/03, § 36, 22 February 2007).
• EGMR, 06.07.2005 - 43579/98
• EGMR, 31.05.2007 - 40116/02

  SECIC c. CROATIE

• EGMR, 11.02.2016 - 27454/11

  ORLIK v. UKRAINE

  In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that in the present case the authorities failed to conduct the investigation into the applicant's allegations of ill-treatment expeditiously, which led to the expiry of the relevant time-limit and made it impossible to pursue prosecution in respect of one of the alleged perpetrators any further (see and compare Beganovic v. Croatia, no. 46423/06, § 85, 25 June 2009; Valiuliene v. Lithuania, no. 33234/07, § 85, 26 March 2013; and Aleksandr Nikonenko, cited above, § 45).