Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06 |
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 ... (11) Neu Zitiert selbst (8)
- 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, 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).
- 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, 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 ET DZIAUTAS c. LITUANIE
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, 26.10.2000 - 30210/96
Das Recht auf Verfahrensbeschleunigung gemäß Art. 6 Abs. 1 S. 1 EMRK in …
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, 27.08.1992 - 12850/87
TOMASI c. FRANCE
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, 14.01.2020 - 41288/15
BEIZARAS AND LEVICKAS v. LITHUANIA
In the Government's submission, the case disclosed no element of discrimination (compare and contrast Sidabras and D?¾iautas 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, 29.03.2022 - 7613/18
VOOL AND TOOMIK v. ESTONIA
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, 01.09.2022 - 26922/19
P.C. v. IRELAND
It has accepted this in relation to complaints raised by convicted prisoners (see the Clift case, cited above), remand prisoners (see Laduna v. Slovakia, no. 31827/02, ECHR 2011 and Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013), and convicted prisoners transferred to secure psychiatric facilities for treatment (S.S. and Others, cited above).
- 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, 30.05.2017 - 69591/14
KOLEV 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 (Gavril Yossifov, § 43, et Rahmani et Dineva, §§ 67-71, précités), la justification d'une détention prolongée au regard de l'article 5 § 3 (Demir c. Turquie (déc.), no 51770/07, §§ 28-35, 16 octobre 2012, Gürcegiz c. Turquie, no 11045/07, §§ 22-25, 15 novembre 2012, et Varnas c. Lituanie, no 42615/06, § 89, 9 juillet 2013) ou le droit à un examen « à bref délai'du recours judiciaire concernant la légalité de la détention, tel que 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 c. Albanie, no 6858/11, § 81, 28 avril 2015). - 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, 05.12.2017 - 53626/14
HARIZANOV v. BULGARIA
D'après la jurisprudence constante de la Cour, un tel recours compensatoire est considéré suffisamment effectif au regard de l'article 35 de la Convention quand la situation dénoncée par le requérant au regard de l'article 5 § 3 précité a déjà pris fin (Demir c. Turquie (déc.), no 51770/07, §§ 28-35, 16 octobre 2012, Gürcegiz c. Turquie, no 11045/07, §§ 22-25, 15 novembre 2012, et Varnas c. Lituanie, no 42615/06, § 89, 9 juillet 2013). - EGMR, 19.01.2017 - 71545/11
IVAN TODOROV 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 (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, tel que 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, 21.03.2023 - 38144/20
DELTUVA v. LITHUANIA
The Court observes that the applicant's wife or daughter were not suspects or witnesses in the criminal proceedings, and the authorities never challenged the applicant's assertion that they did not have any connection to the other suspects and were not familiar with the criminal case (see paragraph 13 above and Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, § 120, 9 July 2013). - EGMR, 11.07.2017 - 13394/13
KAZLAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA
Rechtsprechung
EGMR, 10.05.2017 - 42615/06 |
Volltextveröffentlichungen (2)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
VARNAS AGAINST LITHUANIA
(englisch)
- Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte
VARNAS CONTRE LA LITUANIE
(französisch)
Verfahrensgang
- EGMR, 09.07.2013 - 42615/06
- EGMR, 10.05.2017 - 42615/06