BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
SECOND
SECTION
CASE OF MANEIKIS v. LITHUANIA
(Application
no. 21987/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 January 2011
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Maneikis v. Lithuania,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Nona Tsotsoria, President,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Guido Raimondi, judges,
and
Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 14 December 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 21987/07) 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”) by a
Lithuanian national, Gytis Maneikis
(“the applicant”),
on 12 May 2007.
- The
applicant was represented by V. Falkauskas, a lawyer practising
in Joniškis. The Lithuanian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms
Elvyra
Baltutytė.
- On
19 January 2009 the
President of the Second Section decided to
communicate the application to the Government. In accordance
with Protocol No. 14, the application was assigned to a Committee of
three Judges. The Government objected to the examination of the
application by a Committee. After having considered the Government's
objection, the Court rejected it.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1964 and lives in MaZeikiai.
- On
17 January 1996 the Lithuanian authorities decided to charge the
applicant with the embezzlement of 1,000,000 Lithuanian litas (LTL),
which his company had given him to purchase certain equipment. Given
that prior to the latter date the applicant had fled Lithuania, the
prosecutors ordered a search for him. It was also decided that, once
apprehended, the applicant would be placed in detention.
- On
16 May 1996 the authorities apprehended the applicant in Latvia,
brought him to Lithuania and placed him in detention. The same day
the applicant was informed about the charges against him.
- On
15 August 1996 the applicant was released from detention and
placed under house arrest. When questioned before a pre-trial judge,
the applicant asserted that, whilst staying in Latvia, he had no
information about his search. The applicant admitted that his wife
had visited him in Riga a couple of times; however, she had never
told him about pending criminal charges against him.
The
applicant remained under house arrest until 19 April 2006.
- Later
on in 1996 the prosecution charged the applicant with having
fraudulently reported a crime and with forgery of an official
document.
- On
22 June 1998 the pre-trial investigation was concluded and the
case was transferred to the MaZeikiai District Court.
- On
2 December 2002, 3 and 22 April 2003 the hearing of the
case was postponed, since some of the applicant's co-accused failed
to appear in court.
- On
2 September 2004 the MaZeikiai District Court dismissed as
time-barred the charges against the applicant for forgery of
documents and fraudulent reporting of a crime.
- The
same day the MaZeikiai District Court convicted the applicant and six
of his co-accused of having acted in an organised group of persons
who fraudulently acquired property of a significant value. The
applicant was sentenced to two years and six months of deprivation of
liberty.
- The
applicant appealed.
- On
25 November 2004, 12 September 2005 and 9 February
2006 the examination of the case on appeal was postponed because the
lawyers for the applicant and the co-accused failed to appear in
court.
- On
19 April 2006 the Šiauliai Regional Court amended the
lower court's judgment. It convicted the applicant of assisting in
fraudulently acquiring property of a significant value, and reduced
the sentence imposed by one year.
- On
14 November 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's
cassation appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contended that the length of the proceedings was
reasonable.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust
domestic remedies by claiming redress for the length of the criminal
proceedings. In the alternative, they argued that the complaint was
manifestly ill-founded.
- The
applicant contested the Government's submissions.
- Having
had regard to the Government's arguments and the materials they
submitted, the Court finds that the Government have not presented any
convincing reasons which would require the Court to depart from its
established case-law to the effect that the applicant had not had an
effective domestic remedy at his disposal which he had failed to
exhaust before lodging his application with the Court (see Norkūnas
v. Lithuania,
no. 302/05, §§
29-30, 20 January 2009, and Šulcas v. Lithuania,
no.
35624/04, §§ 60 and 62, 5 January 2010). It follows
that the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of the domestic
remedies must be dismissed.
- The
Court also considers that this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- The
period to be taken into account began on 16 May 1996, when the
applicant was apprehended in Latvia, brought to Lithuania and charged
with embezzlement. The criminal proceedings ended with the decision
of the Supreme Court of 14 November 2006. They thus lasted some
ten years and six months for three levels of jurisdiction.
- The
Court will assess the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings
in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having
regard to the criteria laid down in its case-law, in particular the
complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the
relevant authorities. On the latter point, what is at stake for the
applicant has also to be taken into account (see, among many other
authorities, Portington v. Greece, 23 September 1998, § 21,
Reports 1998 VI).
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case
(see Norkūnas, cited above, §§ 39-41).
- Applying
these principles to the instant case, the Court considers that the
proceedings may be deemed complex, owing, inter alia, to the
number of co-accused and the nature of the offences – financial
impropriety by the applicant. Furthermore, having examined the
materials presented to it, the Court notes that there were some
delays not entirely imputable to the authorities, given the failure
of some of the co-accused or their lawyers, as well as the lawyer of
the applicant, to attend court hearings
(see paragraphs 10 and 14
above).
- As
to the conduct of the authorities, the Court nonetheless notes that
it took the MaZeikiai District Court six years to decide the case on
first instance (see paragraphs 9 and 12 above). The Court also has
regard to the fact that whilst criminal proceedings were pending, the
applicant had been under house arrest for nearly ten years (see
paragraph 7 above).
- The
foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to
conclude that the total length of the impugned criminal proceedings
exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement. There has
accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Invoking
Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained
that his extradition to Lithuania and subsequent detention on remand
were unlawful and that had no effective remedy
to challenge their validity.
- In
this connection the Court notes that the applicant was released from
detention on remand on 15 August 1996. Subsequently, he remained
under house arrest until 19 April 2006. However, the applicant
submitted these complaints to the Court only on 12
May 2007. In the light of above, the Court finds that these
complaints have not been lodged within six months of the final
effective measure or decision, as required by Article 35 § 1
of the Convention. They must therefore be rejected pursuant to
Article 35 § 4.
31. Invoking
Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant further complained that
the Lithuanian courts were unfair, had incorrectly evaluated the
evidence, misinterpreted domestic law and that, as a result, he had
been deprived of an effective remedy to defend his rights.
32. The
Court has examined the remainder of the above complaints as submitted
by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its
possession, it finds that within the framework of the criminal
proceedings the applicant had full opportunity to challenge evidence
against him and to present all necessary arguments in defence of his
interests himself or through counsel, and that the judicial
authorities gave them due consideration. His case was examined at
three levels of jurisdiction. The decisions of the domestic courts do
not appear unreasonable or arbitrary. It follows that this part
of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded,
pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court considers that the applicant has suffered certain
non-pecuniary damage as a result of the excessive length of the
criminal proceedings, which is not sufficiently compensated by the
finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis,
the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,400 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant also claimed LTL 500 (approximately EUR 145) for the
costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- Regard
being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the
Court considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months,
the following amounts, to be converted into Lithuanian litas at the
rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR
3,400 (three thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR
145 (one hundred and forty five euros), plus any tax that may be
chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2011, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-Passos Nona Tsotsoria Deputy
Registrar President
