Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  SAVENKOVAS v. LITHUANIA

  Art. 3, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 2, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
  Remainder inadmissible Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect) Violation of Art. 8 Non-pecuniary damage - award (englisch)

Wird zitiert von ... (12)Zitiert selbst (11)

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 10.10.2000 - 42095/98

  DAKTARAS c. LITUANIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 871/02

  The applicant expanded this aspect of his complaint in his observations on admissibility and merits dated 3 December 2005, contending that there was no concept of effective legal remedies in Lithuanian law when indigenous individuals like himself had to depend on the goodwill of the State (cf. Daktaras v. Lithuania, no. 42095/98, ECHR 2000-X).
• EGMR, 06.12.2007 - 42086/05

  LIU v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 871/02

  An issue as to the quality of the law therefore arises (cf. mutatis mutandis, Liu v. Russia, no. 42086/05, § 56, 6 December 2007).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 59304/00

  JANKAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 871/02

  The Court recalls that it has on a number of occasions criticised the relevant Lithuanian legislation, and particularly its rather vague definition of the word "censorship", which has resulted in a number of cases of abuse by the authorities in their extensive screening or withholding of detainees" correspondence (see Jankauskas v. Lithuania, no. 59304/00, §§ 19-23, 24 February 2005; the aforementioned Puzinas v. Lithuania, §§ 18-22; Ciapas v. Lithuania, no. 4902/02, §§ 24-26, 14 November 2006).

• EGMR, 03.07.2007 - 9460/03

  TAN c. TURQUIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 871/02

  Consequently, prisoners like the applicant were unable to foresee which of their incoming and outgoing general correspondence might be stopped or delayed by the censor (cf. e.g. Tan v. Turkey, no 9460/03, § 20-26, 3 July 2007).
• EGMR, 16.11.2006 - 4902/02

  CIAPAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 871/02

  The Court recalls that it has on a number of occasions criticised the relevant Lithuanian legislation, and particularly its rather vague definition of the word "censorship", which has resulted in a number of cases of abuse by the authorities in their extensive screening or withholding of detainees" correspondence (see Jankauskas v. Lithuania, no. 59304/00, §§ 19-23, 24 February 2005; the aforementioned Puzinas v. Lithuania, §§ 18-22; Ciapas v. Lithuania, no. 4902/02, §§ 24-26, 14 November 2006).
• EGMR, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96

  Ableitung einer allgemeinen Verpflichtung zur Entlassung eines …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 871/02

  Thus, under this provision, the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject the individual to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, the prisoner's health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 871/02

  It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 19.04.2001 - 28524/95

  PEERS v. GREECE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 871/02

  Furthermore, in considering whether treatment is "degrading" within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3. Even the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68, 74, ECHR 2001-III).
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 871/02

  They contended that the applicant had been detained in conditions which had been better than those considered by the Court in the cases of Valasinas v. Lithuania (no. 44558/98, ECHR 2001-VIII) and Karalevicius v. Lithuania (no. 53254/99, 7 April 2005).
• EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 53254/99

  KARALEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 18.11.2008 - 871/02

  They contended that the applicant had been detained in conditions which had been better than those considered by the Court in the cases of Valasinas v. Lithuania (no. 44558/98, ECHR 2001-VIII) and Karalevicius v. Lithuania (no. 53254/99, 7 April 2005).
• VK Niedersachsen, 20.09.2002 - 18/02

  Unverzüglichkeit der Rüge: Rügefrist beträgt bei einem fachkundigen Unternehmen …

alle Zitatstellen anzeigen
• EGMR, 03.12.2015 - 74820/10

  [ENG]

  It has also found no interference by the State with detainees' Article 8 rights in situations where they failed to provide sufficient evidence that they had solicited family visits which they claimed they had not received (see Čistiakov v. Latvia, no. 67275/01, § 86, 8 February 2007; Savenkovas v. Lithuania, no. 871/02, § 101, 18 November 2008; and Epners-Gefners, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 12.03.2019 - 41216/13

  PETUKHOV v. UKRAINE

  For example, in Savenkovas v. Lithuania, no. 871/02, 18 November 2008, the Court, having found a violation of Article 3 on account of the applicant's conditions of detention and a violation of Article 8 on account of excessive control of his correspondence (and having examined also the complaints under Articles 5 and 6), further examined the admissibility of the Article 8 complaint as regards family visits, but rejected it as manifestly ill-founded, because the applicant "ha[d] not shown that he was denied any visits from his family" (paragraph 100).
• EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 53254/99

  AFFAIRES KARALEVICIUS ET SAVENKOVAS CONTRE LA LITUANIE

  Application no. 871/02, judgment of 18/11/2008, final on 18/02/2009).

  Savenkovas, 871/02.

• EGMR, 28.10.2010 - 23284/04

  [ENG]

  Such 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 paragraph 2 and is "necessary in a democratic society" in order to achieve them (see, among other authorities, Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, § 84, Series A no. 61, and Savenkovas v. Lithuania, no. 871/02, § 95, 18 November 2008).
• EGMR, 13.03.2014 - 63763/11

  ZINCHENKO v. UKRAINE

  It has also found no interference by the State with detainees" Article 8 rights in situations where they failed to provide sufficient evidence that they had solicited family visits which they claimed they had not received (see Cistiakov v. Latvia, no. 67275/01, § 86, 8 February 2007; Savenkovas v. Lithuania, no. 871/02, § 101, 18 November 2008; and Epners-Gefners, cited above, § 65).
• EGMR, 19.05.2009 - 34425/04

  STOJANOVIC v. SERBIA

  In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that the finding of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention alone constitutes adequate just satisfaction in respect of the compensation claimed under that head (see, mutatis mutandis, Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, 28 June 1984, § 141, Series A no. 80; Calogero Diana v. Italy, 15 November 1996, § 44, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V; Salapa v. Poland, no. 35489/97, §§ 100-102 and 107, 19 December 2002; and Savenkovas v. Lithuania, no. 871/02, 18 November 2008).
• EGMR, 07.06.2011 - 30221/06

  [ENG]

  The Court therefore finds that the applicant's detention under cramped conditions at Budapest Prison failed to respect basic human dignity and must therefore have been prejudicial to his physical and mental state (see, mutatis mutandis, Savenkovas v. Lithuania, no. 871/02, §§ 81-82, 18 November 2008).
• EGMR, 20.11.2012 - 54872/08

  [ENG]

  I could accept that the Chamber, bearing in mind its findings with regard to the degrading treatment suffered by the applicant (see paragraph 43 of the judgment), might have considered that the applicant had suffered some non-pecuniary damage even as a result of his short detention which could not be compensated solely by the finding of a violation (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 88, ECHR 2001-III; Savenkovas v. Lithuania, no. 871/02, § 117, 18 November 2008; and Longin v. Croatia, no. 49268/10, § 76, 6 November 2012).
• EGMR, 17.01.2012 - 15707/10

  [ENG]

  The Court therefore finds that the applicant's detention under cramped conditions at Szeged Prison in conjunction with the fact that he had to spend almost the entirety of the days inside those cells, (a non-refuted allegation - see paragraph 8 above) failed to respect basic human dignity and must therefore have been prejudicial to his physical and mental state (see, mutatis mutandis, Savenkovas v. Lithuania, no. 871/02, §§ 81-82, 18 November 2008).
• EGMR, 02.07.2013 - 69095/10

  [ENG]

  The Court therefore finds that the applicant's detention in such cramped conditions, especially at Szolnok Prison, must have been prejudicial to his physical and mental state (see, mutatis mutandis, Savenkovas v. Lithuania, no. 871/02, §§ 81-82, 18 November 2008; Sulejmanovic v. Italy, no. 22635/03, §§ 43 to 52, 16 July 2009).
• EGMR, 06.12.2011 - 21978/07

  [ENG]
• EGMR, 05.10.2010 - 38968/04

  JOVANCIC v. SERBIA