A selection of key paragraphs can be found below the judgment.
59. During the course of the applicant’s arrest on 23 November 2011 (see paragraph 20 above), a body search was performed on him and certain objects, such as his telephone, comb and spectacles were taken. The applicant was placed in pre-trial detention in Kaunas.
83. As opposed to the case of A.K. v. the Netherlands (cited above), in the case at hand the applicant did not have his spectacles for more than four months (see paragraphs 59 and 61 above). (…)
85. (…) the applicant mentioned the situation concerning his spectacles in the letter that he sent, in November 2011 at the earliest, to the Seimas’ Committee on Legal Affairs, and that letter reached the Kaunas regional prosecutor’s office, which oversaw the pre-trial investigation, on 2 January 2012. (…) Apparently, the authorities still took no action, as the applicant had to repeat his request. Eventually, the spectacles were returned to the applicant only on 20 April 2012 (see paragraph 61 above). In the light of the above, the Court does not consider that the applicant remained passive.
87. In such circumstances the Court concludes that the treatment complained of by the applicant was imputable to the authorities. Having regard to the degree of suffering involved in this case, and, above all, to its duration and the authorities’ lack of concern in respect of their attitude to his requests for the spectacles to be returned, the Court concludes that the applicant was subjected to degrading treatment. There was, therefore, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.