CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 novembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 1 December 2025   SECOND SECTION Application no. 2229/24 Gintaras STANKEVIČIUS against Lithuania lodged on 10 January 2024 communicated on 10 November 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns 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. On 15   February   2021, while serving his prison sentence, the applicant requested the director of Pravieniškės Correctional Facility, to transfer him to serve the remainder of his sentence in another prison. He submitted that his health and life were in danger. On 2   March 2021 his request was rejected, stating that there was no evidence that the prison authorities would not be able to carry out the process of his resocialisation or to ensure his effective supervision and safety. On 13 September 2021 the applicant was beaten by other inmates. As a result, he was diagnosed with a fracture of the ulnar bone of his right arm, a fracture of his right ankle and a haemorrhage. He also sustained head injuries. The applicant lodged a civil claim against the State with the Regional Administrative Court, requesting   100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage for the failure to ensure his safety in prison. He alleged that, while he had been in a cell, about twelve other inmates had severely beaten him with metal rods and wooden sticks. He also stated that he had repeatedly asked to be transferred to another prison, but the administration of Pravieniškės Correctional Facility had ignored his requests. On 12 December 2022 the Regional Administrative Court granted the applicant’s claim in part and awarded him EUR 800. On 8 November   2023 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld that judgment. The courts acknowledged that Pravieniškės Correctional Facility had failed to ensure the applicant’s safety. They held that, taking into account his requests, there were grounds to carefully assess the situation and isolate the applicant from other convicts or take other measures. The courts also observed that even after the event in question the prison authorities had not granted the applicant’s subsequent requests for transfer or take other adequate measures. Only on 10   January 2022 was he transferred to another prison sector. The applicant complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, that the prison authorities had failed to ensure his safety in prison. Relying on Article   14 of the Convention, he complains that the compensation awarded to him was insufficient and that the domestic courts awarded such low amount of compensation solely because he was a prisoner. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Can the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article   34 of the Convention, considering the amount of non-pecuniary damages awarded to him by the domestic courts (see Gjini v. Serbia , no.   1128/16, §§   54-56, 15   January 2019; M.C. v. Poland , no.   23692/09, §§   92-94, 3   March 2015)?   2.     Did the prison authorities take the necessary measures to protect the applicant’s physical integrity from inter-prisoner violence, as required under Article 3 of the Convention (see Gjini v. Serbia , no.   1128/16, §§   72-80, 15   January 2019; D.F. v. Latvia , no. 11160/07, §§ 81-95, 29 October 2013)?