CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 mai 2026
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0507DEC000222924
- Date
- 7 mai 2026
- Publication
- 7 mai 2026
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
IAFaits
Un requérant a saisi la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme (CEDH) contre la République de Lituanie en invoquant une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme (CEDH) concernant le droit d'un détenu à la protection de son intégrité physique face à des attaques de tiers et à une réparation suffisante en cas de défaillance de cette protection. Les griefs ont été communiqués au gouvernement lituanien. Les parties ont ensuite conclu un règlement amiable.
Procédure
La CEDH a reçu des déclarations de règlement amiable signées par les parties, par lesquelles le requérant a accepté de renoncer à toute réclamation ultérieure contre la Lituanie pour les faits à l'origine de la requête, sous réserve d'un engagement du gouvernement à lui verser une somme détaillée dans un tableau annexé. Cette somme devait être payée dans un délai de trois mois à compter de la notification de la décision de la Cour. En cas de non-paiement dans ce délai, des intérêts simples seraient appliqués. Le paiement devait constituer la résolution définitive de l'affaire.
Question juridique
La Cour européenne des droits de l'homme est-elle compétente pour examiner la requête au regard de l'article 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, et le règlement amiable proposé respecte-t-il les exigences de la Convention ?
Solution
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s329183A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sA10C00D6 { width:14.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s34E8CD41 { width:126.74pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s935FFEBF { width:7.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sDCEB1D12 { width:138.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s392E6575 { height:37.95pt } .sEC2C3242 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC39F4804 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s6CDC6B81 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.4pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sA4BC3E2E { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 2229/24 Gintaras STANKEVIČIUS against Lithuania (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7   May   2026 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphane Pisani , President ,   Juha Lavapuro,   Hugh Mercer , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 10   January 2024, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant’s details are set out in the appended table. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning a prisoner’s right to protection of his physical integrity from the attacks by third persons and to sufficient redress in the event where such protection had not been provided were communicated to the Lithuanian Government (“the   Government”). The Court received the friendly-settlement declarations, signed by the parties, under which the applicant agreed to waive any further claims against Lithuania in respect of the facts giving rise to this application, subject to an undertaking by the Government to pay him the amount detailed in the appended table. This amount will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the Court’s decision. In the event of failure to pay this amount within the above-mentioned three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. THE LAW The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article   39 of the Convention. Done in English and notified in writing on 28 May 2026.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Stéphane Pisani   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Date of receipt of Government’s declaration Date of receipt of Applicant’s declaration Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses per applicant (in euros) [1] 2229/24 10/01/2024 Gintaras STANKEVIČIUS 1973   19/02/2026 15/12/2025 7,200   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
- Formation
- 26
- Date
- 7 mai 2026
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2026:0507DEC000222924
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral