Rechtsprechung
| EGMR, 06.06.2002 - 53254/99 |
Volltextveröffentlichung
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
KARALEVICIUS v. LITHUANIA
Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 3, Art. 5, Art. 5 Abs. 1, Art. 8, Art. 8 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 1, Protokoll Nr. 4 Art. 2 Abs. 3 MRK
Partly admissible Partly inadmissible (englisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 17.10.2000 - 53254/99
- EGMR, 06.06.2002 - 53254/99
- EGMR, 07.04.2005 - 53254/99
- EGMR, 02.12.2011 - 53254/99
Wird zitiert von ... (0) Neu Zitiert selbst (3)
- EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98
VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2002 - 53254/99
The relevant domestic provisions regarding the applicant's complaints have been summarised in the Valasinas v. Lithuania (no. 44558/98, 24.7.2001, §§ 92-97, ECHR 2001-VIII) and Puzinas v. Lithuania (no. 44800/98, 14.3.2002, § 15-17) judgments.The Court recalls that there is no obligation under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to have recourse to remedies which are inadequate (see, Valasinas v. Lithuania (dec.), no. 44558/98, 14.3.2000).
While the detention conditions there, namely the absence of windows and a stroll yard, were established as unsatisfactory by the Ombudsman, the Court considers that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the impugned treatment in that prison attained the minimum level of severity required for it to fall within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention, given in particular the very short duration of that period of detention and the absence of a medical document or other evidence showing a suffering or damage to the health of the applicant as a result of his keeping at the Kaunas Central Police Department Remand Prison (see, mutatis mutandis, Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, 24.7.2001, §§ 100-113, ECHR-VIII 2001).
- EGMR, 31.07.2000 - 34578/97
JECIUS v. LITHUANIA
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2002 - 53254/99
The Court recalls that Article 5 § 1 of the Convention requires that any period of detention be compatible with domestic law and not arbitrary (see, Jecius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, 31.7.2000, § 56, ECHR 2000-IX). - EGMR, 18.12.1986 - 9990/82
BOZANO v. FRANCE
Auszug aus EGMR, 06.06.2002 - 53254/99
The Court has consistently refused to uphold applications from persons convicted of criminal offences who complain that their convictions or sentences were found by the appellate courts to have been based on errors of fact or law (see, inter alia, Bozano v. France, no. 9990/82, 18.12.1986, § 55, Series A no. 111; Benham v. the United Kingdom, no. 19380/92, 10.6.1996, § 42, ECHR 1996-III).