Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  PUZINAS v. LITHUANIA (No. 2)

  Art. 10, Art. 11, Art. 11 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1 MRK
  No violation of Art. 8 Not necessary to examine Art. 10 and 11 (englisch)

Verfahrensgang

• EGMR, 13.12.2005 - 63767/00
• EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 63767/00

Wird zitiert von ... (8)Zitiert selbst (4)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 25.03.1983 - 5947/72

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 63767/00

  With that aim in mind, some measure of control over prisoners" correspondence, such as sporadic screening (other than letters involving domestic or Convention judicial business), may be called for and may not of itself be incompatible with the Convention (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, Series A no. 61, judgment of 25 March 1983, § 98; a contrario, Jankauskas v. Lithuania, no. 59304/00, judgment of 24 February 2005, §§ 21-22).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 63767/00

  Certain other domestic provisions concerning the censorship of convicted prisoners" correspondence have been summarised in the judgments of Valasinas v. Lithuania (no. 44558/98, 24.7.2001 §§ 94-97, ECHR 2001-VIII) and Puzinas (no. 1) v. Lithuania (no. 44800/98, 14.3.2002, §§ 15-17).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 59304/00

  JANKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 63767/00

  With that aim in mind, some measure of control over prisoners" correspondence, such as sporadic screening (other than letters involving domestic or Convention judicial business), may be called for and may not of itself be incompatible with the Convention (Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, Series A no. 61, judgment of 25 March 1983, § 98; a contrario, Jankauskas v. Lithuania, no. 59304/00, judgment of 24 February 2005, §§ 21-22).
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 4902/02

  CIAPAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 09.01.2007 - 63767/00

  The Court has on a number of occasions criticised the relevant Lithuanian legislation, and particularly the rather vague definition of the word "censorship" used therein, which has resulted in a number of cases of abuse by the authorities in their extensive screening or withholding of detainees" correspondence (the aforementioned Jankauskas judgment, §§ 19-23; the aforementioned Puzinas (no. 1) judgment, §§ 20-22; Ciapas v. Lithuania, no. 4902/02, judgment of 14 November 2006, §§ 24-26, not final).

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 16.12.2003 - 59304/00

  JANKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Apart from the examples of administrative proceedings brought by the applicant in the present case (see the 'Facts' section above), regard could be had to the Puzinas (no. 2) v. Lithuania case (no. 63767/00, communicated by the Court to the respondent Government on 7 May 2002), in which an applicant was involved in litigation before the administrative courts regarding the lawfulness of a disciplinary penalty imposed by prison administration in 1999 (the proceedings took place while that applicant was still in prison in 2000), and the legality of his transfer from one prison to another (in the latter case, damages were awarded in favour of the prisoner).

  Account can be taken, for example, of the Puzinas v. Lithuania (no. 2) case (no. 63767/00, communicated by the Court to the respondent Government on 7 May 2002), in which an applicant was involved in litigation before the administrative courts regarding the lawfulness of a disciplinary penalty and the legality of his transfer from one prison to another (see the 'Relevant domestic law and practice' section above).

• EGMR, 29.03.2007 - 205/02

  Menschenrechtsgericht rügt erneut Haftbedingungen in Russland

  Furthermore, the Court notes that the Convention does not guarantee a right to the application of an amnesty law (see Puzinas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 63767/00, 13 December 2005).
• EGMR, 25.03.2021 - 1864/18

  MATALAS v. GREECE

  Nor were the statements made outside the proper channels of complaint (contrast Puzinas v. Lithuania (no. 2), no. 63767/00, §§ 30 and 34, 9 January 2007).

• EGMR, 12.06.2008 - 78146/01

  VLASOV v. RUSSIA

  It also reiterates in this connection that correspondence may not be stopped for raising complaints about prison matters or delayed until such complaints have first been examined by the prison administration (see Puzinas v. Lithuania (no. 2), no. 63767/00, § 33, 9 January 2007).
• EGMR, 12.03.2009 - 1291/03

  SERGEY VOLOSYUK v. UKRAINE

  Lastly, the Court observes that the applicant had no remedy to effectively challenge the impugned disciplinary measure (contrast Puzinas v. Lithuania (no. 2), no. 63767/00, §§ 30-35, 9 January 2007).
• EGMR, 13.03.2018 - 45651/11

  DOBROWOLSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND

  The Court notes in the first place that collecting such a contribution is not in itself at variance with the Convention (see Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 103, ECHR 2011, and Puzinas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 63767/00, 13 December 2005).
• EGMR, 21.07.2016 - 35365/12

  SHAHANOV v. BULGARIA

  Nor were the statements made outside the proper channels of complaint (contrast Puzinas v. Lithuania (no. 2), no. 63767/00, §§ 30 and 34, 9 January 2007).
• EGMR, 25.06.2019 - 1935/07

  [ENG]

  The Court reiterates that an interference will contravene Article 8 unless it is "in accordance with the law", pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in the second paragraph of that provision and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see Puzinas v. Lithuania (no. 2), no. 63767/00, § 31, 9 January 2007).