Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06   

Sie müssen eingeloggt sein, um diese Funktion zu nutzen.

Sie haben noch kein Nutzerkonto? In weniger als einer Minute ist es eingerichtet und Sie können sofort diese und weitere kostenlose Zusatzfunktionen nutzen.

| | Was ist die Merkfunktion?
Ablegen in
Benachrichtigen, wenn:




 
Alle auswählen
 

Zitiervorschläge

https://dejure.org/2013,15472
EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06 (https://dejure.org/2013,15472)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09.07.2013 - 42615/06 (https://dejure.org/2013,15472)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 09. Juli 2013 - 42615/06 (https://dejure.org/2013,15472)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,15472) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

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 (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

Verfahrensgang

 
Sortierung



Kontextvorschau





Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (17)

  • EGMR, 28.05.2019 - 33172/16

    CHALDAYEV c. RUSSIE

    La Cour admet donc que les faits de l'espèce tombent «sous l'empire» de l'article 8 de la Convention, aux fins de l'applicabilité de l'article 14 (voir, dans le même sens, Laduna c. Slovaquie, no 31827/02, § 54, CEDH 2011, Varnas c. Lituanie, no 42615/06, § 111, 9 juillet 2013, Costel Gaciu c. Roumanie, no 39633/10, § 51, 23 juin 2015, et Alexandru Enache c. Roumanie, no 16986/12, §§ 54-58, 3 octobre 2017).
  • 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, 04.07.2017 - 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, 13.03.2014 - 63763/11

    ZINCHENKO v. UKRAINE

    Turning to the facts of the present case, the Court finds that in order to bring the applicant's complaint within the ambit of Article 8, he should have provided evidence that he and his parents sought to have the visits they claimed they had not received (see, by contrast, Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, § 110, 9 July 2013).
  • EGMR, 02.05.2017 - 36249/14

    LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA

    Therefore, relying on the Court's judgment in Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, §§ 85-89, 9 July 2013), the Government requested that the application be declared inadmissible due to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
  • EGMR, 13.02.2018 - 43149/10

    ANDREY 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, 19.01.2017 - 72936/14

    I.P. c. BULGARIE

    La Cour a déjà appliqué ce principe dans des affaires où étaient en cause la régularité de la détention en droit interne au regard de l'article 5 § 1 de la Convention (Gavril Yossifov, précité, § 43, et Rahmani et Dineva, précité, §§ 67-71), la justification d'une détention prolongée au regard de l'article 5 § 3 (Varnas c. Lituanie, no 42615/06, § 89, 9 juillet 2013, et Demir c. Turquie (déc.), no 51770/07, §§ 28-35, 16 octobre 2012) ou le droit à un examen «à bref délai» du recours judiciaire concernant la légalité de la détention, garanti par l'article 5 § 4 (Knebl c. République tchèque, no 20157/05, §§ 105-106, 28 octobre 2010, Osváthová c. Slovaquie, no 15684/05, §§ 57-59, 21 décembre 2010, et Delijorgji, précité, § 81).
  • EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 62663/13

    SCENSNOVICIUS v. LITHUANIA

    Relying on the Court's judgment in Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, §§ 85-89, 9 July 2013), the Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies.
  • EGMR, 26.06.2018 - 691/15

    D.R. v. LITHUANIA

    They submitted that the Court had acknowledged the effectiveness of that remedy in its judgments in Venskute v. Lithuania (no. 10645/08, 11 December 2012) and Varnas v. Lithuania (no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013).
  • EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 9662/13

    TSONEV v. BULGARIA

    This principle has already been applied to complaints under Article 5 § 1 that a period of detention was unlawful (see Gavril Yossifov, § 43, and Rahmani and Dineva, §§ 67-71, both cited above), complaints under Article 5 § 3 that the length of pre-trial detention was unreasonable (see Demir v. Turkey (dec.), no. 51770/07, §§ 28-35, 16 October 2012; Gürcegiz v. Turkey, no. 11045/07, §§ 22-25, 15 November 2012; Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, § 89, 9 July 2013; and Yildiz v. Turkey (dec.), no. 42745/09, §§ 26-30, 11 October 2016) and complaints under Article 5 § 4 that legal challenges against detention were not examined speedily (see Knebl v. the Czech Republic, no. 20157/05, §§ 105-06, 28 October 2010; Osváthová v. Slovakia, no. 15684/05, §§ 57-59, 21 December 2010; and Delijorgji v. Albania, no. 6858/11, § 81, 28 April 2015).
  • EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 71545/11

    IVAN TODOROV c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 23.06.2015 - 39633/10

    COSTEL GACIU v. ROMANIA

  • EGMR, 30.05.2017 - 69591/14

    KOLEV c. BULGARIE

  • EGMR, 19.01.2016 - 1886/06

    ALBRECHTAS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR, 10.07.2018 - 22740/10

    IMBRAS v. LITHUANIA

  • EGMR - 7613/18 (anhängig)

    VOOL v. ESTONIA and 1 other application

  • EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 13394/13

    KAZLAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA

Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
Neu: Die Merklistenfunktion erreichen Sie nun über das Lesezeichen oben.
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht