Valiuliené v. Lithuania
European Court of Human Rights
Application No. 33234/07 (March 26, 2013) (2013)
- Written by Kelly Simon, JD
Facts
In February 2001, Loretta Valiuliené (plaintiff) brought evidence to the district court in Panevėžys, a city in Lithuania (defendant), that her live-in partner had abused Valiuliené on five separate instances. Valiuliené sought a private prosecution of her abuser. After Valiuliené’s partner failed to appear in court multiple times, the case was transferred to a public prosecutor. Once transferred, the case was suspended for lack of evidence, and the prosecutors quashed the investigator’s decisions as not being sufficiently thorough. Over three years after being referred to the prosecutor, the case was returned to Valiuliené for private prosecution. Valiuliené returned to the Panevėžys district court again, but her case was dismissed as time-barred. Valiuliené appealed; however, the regional court upheld the decision to terminate the proceeding due to the statute of limitations. Valiuliené, without means to have her attacker prosecuted, filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that Lithuania failed to protect Valiuliené from acts of domestic violence in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (the convention).
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
Concurrence (Pinto de Albuquerque, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.