Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  VARNAS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 14, Art. 14+8 Abs. 1, Art. 35, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 14+8-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) Non-pecuniary damage - award ...

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Varnas v. Lithuania

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  [ENG]

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06
• EGMR, 10.05.2017 - 42615/06

Wird zitiert von ... (32)Zitiert selbst (8)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  From that date the applicant was detained "after conviction by a competent court", within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a), and therefore that period of his detention falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 04.12.2007 - 44362/04

  DICKSON c. ROYAUME-UNI

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  Accordingly, this is an area in which the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention with due regard to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see Dickson v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 44362/04, § 81, ECHR 2007-V).
• EGMR, 27.07.2004 - 55480/00

  SIDABRAS AND DZIAUTAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  For Article 14 to become applicable, it suffices that the facts of a case fall within the ambit of another substantive provision of the Convention or its Protocols (see Sidabras and Dziautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 38, ECHR 2004-VIII).

• EGMR, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  On this point the Court reiterates the Convention organs" constant case-law to the effect that an action for damages cannot be seen as an effective remedy in respect of complaints under Article 5 § 3 about the excessive length of time spent on remand (see Woukam Moudefo v. France, no. 10868/84, Commission decision of 21 January 1987, DR 51, p. 73; Egue v. France, no. 11256/84, Commission decision of 5 September 1988, DR 57, p. 60; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, § 79, Series A no. 241-A; YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, nos. 16419/90 and 16426/90, Commission decision of 10 July 1991, DR 71, p. 253, and judgment of 8 June 1995, § 44, Series A no. 319-A; Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007).
• EGMR, 10.04.2012 - 20496/02

  SILICKIENE v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  Namely, the applicant's wife was neither a witness nor a co-accused in the criminal cases against her husband, which removed the risk of collusion or other forms of obstructing the process of collecting evidence (see, in contrast, mutatis mutandis, Silickiene v. Lithuania, no. 20496/02, §§ 28 and 29, 10 April 2012).
• EGMR, 08.06.1995 - 16419/90

  YAGCI AND SARGIN v. TURKEY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  On this point the Court reiterates the Convention organs" constant case-law to the effect that an action for damages cannot be seen as an effective remedy in respect of complaints under Article 5 § 3 about the excessive length of time spent on remand (see Woukam Moudefo v. France, no. 10868/84, Commission decision of 21 January 1987, DR 51, p. 73; Egue v. France, no. 11256/84, Commission decision of 5 September 1988, DR 57, p. 60; Tomasi v. France, judgment of 27 August 1992, § 79, Series A no. 241-A; YaÄŸcı and Sargın v. Turkey, nos. 16419/90 and 16426/90, Commission decision of 10 July 1991, DR 71, p. 253, and judgment of 8 June 1995, § 44, Series A no. 319-A; Haris v. Slovakia, no. 14893/02, § 38, 6 September 2007).
• EGMR, 17.07.2007 - 48666/99

  KUCERA v. SLOVAKIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that there was a particular reason to prevent the applicant from having conjugal visits with his wife (see, by contrast, Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 130, 17 July 2007; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, § 92 et seq., 11 October 2005; and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 135, 3 April 2003).
• EGMR, 03.04.2003 - 31583/96

  KLAMECKI v. POLAND (No. 2)

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06

  Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that there was a particular reason to prevent the applicant from having conjugal visits with his wife (see, by contrast, Kucera v. Slovakia, no. 48666/99, § 130, 17 July 2007; Baginski v. Poland, no. 37444/97, § 92 et seq., 11 October 2005; and Klamecki v. Poland (no. 2), no. 31583/96, § 135, 3 April 2003).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15

  BEIZARAS ET LEVICKAS c. LITUANIE

  In the Government's submission, the case disclosed no element of discrimination (compare and contrast Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania, nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, § 34, ECHR 2004-VIII, and Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, §§ 99-102, 9 July 2013, where the Government had acknowledged differential treatment), for the domestic authorities' decision not to start a criminal investigation regarding the comments at issue had nothing to do with the applicants' sexual orientation (see paragraph 96 above).
• EGMR, 26.03.2019 - 56998/16

  VELECKA v. LITHUANIA and 3 other applications

  On 14 March 2018 the Supreme Administrative Court referred to the case of Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013) and held that the applicant's rights had been breached with regard to the authorities' refusal to allow him long-stay visits.

  For relevant domestic law regarding prison visits, see Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, §§ 58-61, 9 July 2013), and Čiapas v. Lithuania, ((dec.), no. 62564/13, §§ 10-14, 4 July 2017).

  The Government also submitted that after the judgment in Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013) the provisions of the Convention and domestic law conflicted with each other.

• EGMR, 25.09.2018 - 14411/16

  OSKIRKO v. LITHUANIA

  For the relevant domestic law and practice as regards visits, see Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, §§ 58-61, 9 July 2013) and Čiapas v. Lithuania, ((dec.), no. 62564/13, §§ 10-14, 4 July 2017).

  The Government maintained that the applicant had been able to rely on Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013) and the provisions of the Convention before the domestic courts, because by the time his administrative case had been examined in the domestic courts, the judgment in Varnas v. Lithuania had already become final.

• EGMR, 29.03.2022 - 7613/18

  VOOL v. ESTONIA and 1 other application

  Relevant international materials 54. The relevant United Nations standards concerning the rights of detainees in pre-trial detention are described in Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, §§ 71-72, 9 July 2013).

  It was only after he learned about the Court's judgment in Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013) that he lodged the first written application.

• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 41216/13

  PETUKHOV v. UKRAINE

  For example, in Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013 the applicant complained of his inability to receive conjugal visits from his wife during his pre-trial detention (arguing, inter alia, that his entitlement in that respect had been more restricted than that of a convicted person serving a prison sentence); in Costel Gaciu v. Romania, no. 39633/10, § 50, 23 June 2015 the applicant complained of the refusal of his requests for conjugal visits for the sole reason that he was not a convicted prisoner (under domestic law a person being held in pre-trial detention was not entitled to conjugal visits, in contrast with a person already convicted, who had such a right).
• EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 78123/13

  DAKTARAS v. LITHUANIA

  Relying on the Strasbourg Court's judgment in Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013), the domestic court held that the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life had been breached.

  Accordingly, this is an area in which the Contracting States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in determining the steps to be taken to ensure compliance with the Convention with due regard to the needs and resources of the community and of individuals (see Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, § 109, 9 July 2013, and Costel Gaciu v. Romania, no. 39633/10, § 50, 23 June 2015).

• EGMR, 04.12.2018 - 29826/15

  MICHNO v. LITHUANIA + 1 application

  For the relevant domestic law and practice as regards visits, see Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, §§ 58-61, 9 July 2013) and Čiapas v. Lithuania, ((dec.), no. 62564/13, §§ 10-14, 4 July 2017).

  The Government also submitted that after the judgment in Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013) the provisions of the Convention and domestic law had conflicted with each other.

• EGMR, 14.01.2025 - 60811/15

  KUNSHUGAROV v. TURKEY and 1 other application

  The Court further reiterates that where the person concerned is still in custody, the only remedy that may be considered sufficient and adequate is one that is capable of leading to a binding decision ordering his or her release (see Gavril Yosifov v. Bulgaria, no. 74012/01, § 40, 6 November 2008, and Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, § 86, 9 July 2013).
• EGMR, 04.07.2017 - 62564/13

  CIAPAS v. LITHUANIA

  An explanatory report of 22 April 2015, attached to the draft amendments of the Law on Pre-Trial Detention, stated that the Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013) judgment had obliged Lithuania to make sure it did not discriminate against remand detainees (as compared with convicted inmates) and to provide them with the possibility to receive conjugal visits from spouses (partners).

  They further submitted that after the judgment in Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013) the provisions of the Convention and domestic law had conflicted with each other and the applicant had been able to invoke the provisions of the Convention directly before the domestic courts.

• EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

  SMIRNOV v. RUSSIA

  That being so, it also observes that Article 10 § 2 (a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires, in particular, that accused persons should, save in exceptional circumstances, be subject to a separate treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons who enjoy the right to be presumed innocent (see Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, §§ 71-72, 9 July 2013).
• EGMR, 10.01.2019 - 12879/09

  Ä'CIS v. LATVIA
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63763/11

  ZINCHENKO v. UKRAINE
• EGMR, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19

  P.C. v. IRELAND
• EGMR, 10.06.2025 - 4581/16

  B.T. AND B.K.CS. v. HUNGARY
• EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 33172/16

  CHALDAYEV c. RUSSIE
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 62663/13

  SCENSNOVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 9662/13

  TSONEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 69591/14

  KOLEV v. BULGARIA
• EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

  LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 72936/14

  I.P. c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 21.03.2023 - 38144/20

  DELTUVA v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 691/15

  D.R. v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 05.12.2017 - 53626/14

  HARIZANOV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 71545/11

  TODOROV c. BULGARIE
• EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 39633/10

  COSTEL GACIU v. ROMANIA
• EGMR, 17.09.2024 - 10495/21

  BORISOVAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 12.09.2019 - 25832/18

  NAVICKAI v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 03.07.2018 - 55109/15

  RAGULSKIS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 1886/06

  ALBRECHTAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 25.03.2025 - 29790/20

  VELECKA AND BUI-VELECKIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 22740/10

  IMBRAS v. LITHUANIA
• EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 13394/13

  KAZLAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA