Source: https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=EGMR&Datum=08.12.2015&Aktenzeichen=40828/12
Timestamp: 2020-04-08 22:31:42
Document Index: 48984498

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 118', 'in fine', '§ 65', '§ 50', '§ 84', '§ 50', '§ 84', '§ 86', '§ 50', '§ 84', '§ 93', '§ 50', '§ 86', '§ 50', '§ 134', '§ 155', '§ 50', '§ 50', '§ 143']

EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13,... - dejure.org
EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13, 70065/13
https://dejure.org/2015,36688
EGMR, 08.12.2015 - 40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13, 70065/13 (https://dejure.org/2015,36688)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08.12.2015 - 40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13, 70065/13 (https://dejure.org/2015,36688)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 08. Dezember 2015 - 40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13, 70065/13 (https://dejure.org/2015,36688)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2015,36688) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.
Inadmissible (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive ...
40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13 and 70065/13, §§ 118-123, 8 December 2015).
40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13 and 70065/13, 8 December 2015.
In fact, as regards the Pravieniskes Correctional Home, the CPT specifically noted after its 2008 visit that steps should be taken to ensure that all sentenced prisoners in that prison were able to engage in purposeful activities of a varied nature, such as educational programmes (see point 49 in fine of the CPT report, quoted in Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13 and 70065/13, § 65, 8 December 2015).
For relevant domestic law and practice and international materials see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 50-69, 8 December 2015).
The Court refers to the general principles stemming from its case-law and to its earlier findings (see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 84-88 and 93-94, 8 December 2015).
For the relevant domestic law and practice and international materials regarding conditions of detention, in particular in Lukiskes Remand Prison, at the material time, see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 50-69, 8 December 2015).
The Court also refers to the general principles concerning the assessment of an applicant's victim status in cases of conditions of detention, stemming from its case-law and to its earlier findings (see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 84-85 and 93-94, 8 December 2015) and the specific aspects of the victim status in Lithuanian conditions of detention cases (ibid., §§ 86-88).
For relevant domestic law and practice and relevant international materials, see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 50-69, 8 December 2015).
The Court refers to its general principles and earlier findings (see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 84-88 and §§ 93-94, 8 December 2015).
EGMR, 12.07.2016 - 19536/14
ZEKONIENÄ- v. LITHUANIA
The relevant domestic law concerning the State's responsibility for the damage caused by inadequate detention conditions is summarised in §§ 50-53 of Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13 and 70065/13, 8 December 2015).
The Court recalls its findings in Mironovas and Others (nos. 40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13 and 70065/13, §§ 86-92, 8 December 2015) where it examined complaints about inadequate conditions of detention in Lithuania and held that a claim for damages before the administrative courts could in principle secure a remedy in respect of such complaints, in that it offered a reasonable prospect of success.
For relevant domestic law and practice concerning conditions of detention, see §§ 50-60 of Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, 8 December 2015).
While the Government provided a list of activities in which the applicant could participate (see paragraph 39 above), the Court nonetheless observes that the applicant was not able to freely move around the prison during the day and remained confined to his cell most of the time (compare and contrast Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 134 and 139, 8 December 2015, and Mur?.ic, cited above, §§ 155-63).
EGMR, 17.10.2017 - 71024/13
STEMPLYS AND DEBESYS v. LITHUANIA
For the relevant domestic law and practice and international materials, including reports on the conditions in the Pravieniskes Correctional Facility, see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 40828/12 and 6 others, §§ 50-69, 8 December 2015).
EGMR, 04.04.2017 - 40091/13
BILINSKAS v. LITHUANIA
The relevant provisions of domestic law are resumed in Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13 and 70065/13, §§ 50-55, 8 December 2015).
The Court observes that the principles governing the assessment of an applicant's victim status are summarised in paragraphs 178-192 of its judgment in the case of Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) ([GC], no. 36813/97, ECHR 2006-V), and paragraphs 84-85 of its judgment in the case of Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania (nos. 40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13 and 70065/13, 8 December 2015).
Nevertheless, in the absence of any convincing information from the Government to the contrary, and in view of the principles cited in paragraph 74 above, the Court accepts the applicant's argument that the Sabiha Gökçen Airport detention facility was filled beyond its design capacity during the course of his detention, at times to the point of constituting a flagrant lack of personal space (see, mutatis mutandis, Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania, nos. 40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 40163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13 and 70065/13, § 143, 8 December 2015).
EGMR, 10.04.2018 - 42468/16
BUTKUS AND REMEIKIS v. LITHUANIA