No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election)

Angelika Nußberger;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in 1959 in Urdoma, the Russian Federation. He lives in Kėdainiai, a town in Lithuania.

The applicant is a businessman. He used to be a politician. In 2003 he established and was chairman of the Labour Party (Darbo partija) in Lithuania. In the parliamentary elections of 2004, the Labour Party obtained more votes than any other political party. Between December 2004 and June 2005 the applicant was Minister of the Economy, but resigned from that post after the Chief Official Ethics Commission (Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija) found that he had breached the principle of not mixing private and public interests.

In May 2006 a criminal investigation was opened on suspicion of fraudulent accounting by the Labour Party. The authorities suspected that the applicant, acting in complicity with three other members of that party the party treasurer and two high-level administrators – as well as one other person, had doctored the Labour Party’s accounts. The Labour Party, as a legal entity, was also a suspect in the case.

Later that month the authorities searched the applicant’s home in Kėdainiai town, as well as the Labour Party’s headquarters.

In June 2006 the prosecutor attempted to call the applicant for questioning. However, the applicant could not be reached on his telephone, nor summoned. The applicant’s wife explained to the prosecutor that the last time she had seen her husband was in May 2006, when he had left for the Russian Federation. The applicant’s wife refused to give any other testimony related to her husband.

On 23 June 2006 the applicant sent the Lithuanian Attorney General a letter to the effect that he was aware of the ongoing pre-trial investigation regarding him and the Labour Party, and that some of his party colleagues had already been questioned. He claimed that he was staying in the Russian Federation, without disclosing his exact address. He asserted that the criminal case was “a dirty political game” (teisinės institucijos dalyvauja nešvariame politiniame žaidime) and had no basis, and expressed his intention to involve international organisations in his case. He also stated that he would return to Lithuania when his family circumstances permitted. In particular, his brother had recently died in Russia and his mother needed support.

On 28 June 2006 the applicant resigned from the post of Labour Party chairman.

On 17 July 2006 the Labour Party website made public the applicant’s “Letter to the People of Lithuania” (Laiškas Lietuvos žmonėms), in which he stated that he would not hurry to return to Lithuania because he was expecting the [Lithuanian] authorities to start a search for him. He did not wish to be questioned in the Republic of Lithuania, and wanted international organisations to be involved in his proceedings.

On 23 August 2006 the prosecutor decided to declare the applicant a suspect in the criminal case. The prosecutor found that, as chairman of the Labour Party and also acting in an organised group with other members of that party, the applicant had sought to finance the party unlawfully and to avoid the financial supervision of the party and its political campaigns, by organising the party’s fraudulent accounting from 2004 to 2006. As a result, it had been impossible to establish the structure of the party’s assets and expenditure for those years. In particular, the Labour Party had omitted from its accounts some 8,000,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 2,300,000 euros (EUR)) worth of income, and some LTL 7,300,000 (approximately EUR 2,100,000) worth of expenditure. The applicant had also provided inaccurate data to the Central Electoral Commission and the tax authorities. This was in breach of a number of Criminal Code provisions (see paragraph 71 below), as well as the Law on the Funding of Political Parties and Political Campaigns (see paragraph 70 below).

On 25 August 2006 the Vilnius City Second District Court sanctioned, in absentia, the applicant’s arrest and remand in custody on the grounds that he had known about the criminal proceedings but was hiding in the Russian Federation and had failed to present himself to the prosecutors to take part in the criminal proceedings. It was reasonable to assume that the applicant would continue to hide from the Lithuanian authorities, thus obstructing the investigation. On the same day the prosecutor ordered a search for the applicant.

In September 2006 both decisions were made available to the applicant’s lawyer.

On 26 August 2006 at the Labour Party congress, another person was elected as chairman of the Labour Party in the applicant’s place.

On 15 September 2006 the authorities of the Russian Federation arrested the applicant in Moscow. On the same day he asked for political asylum in Russia and was immediately released. On the basis of information that reached them by Interpol, the Lithuanian prosecutors then asked their colleagues in the Russian Federation to arrest the applicant and to extradite him to Lithuania.

By a letter of 22 January 2007, the Deputy Attorney General of the Russian Federation refused the request, relying on Article 3 of the European Convention on Extradition, which states that extradition will not be granted if the offence in respect of which it is requested is regarded by the requested State as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence.

Having taken into account the criminal charges in respect of the Labour Party, including evidence by independent auditors, on 14 November 2006 the Central Electoral Commission decided not to allocate it appropriations from the State budget.

In January 2007 the Central Electoral Commission confirmed the applicant as a Labour Party candidate in elections to the municipal council of the Kėdainiai district. Given that electoral candidates in municipal elections had immunity from prosecution, the prosecutor asked the Central Electoral Commission to permit the restriction of the applicant’s freedom and his prosecution (see Article 49 § 1 of the Law on the Elections to the Seimas, cited in paragraph 67 below). At a hearing attended by the applicant’s lawyer, the prosecutor and representatives of the media and the Labour Party, the Central Electoral Commission granted that request.

On 12 February 2007 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer, who asserted that the restriction of his client’s liberty was in breach of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention because he would then be unable to meet potential voters and proclaim his electoral programme. The Lithuanian court had regard to the Court’s case-law on the subject and emphasised that the right to stand for elections was not absolute (the Supreme Administrative Court referred to Sukhovetskyy v. Ukraine, no. 13716/02, §§ 50 and 51, ECHR 2006VI). Moreover, according to the Venice Commission guidelines, fundamental rights and freedoms, including the freedom to move within a State, could be limited in order to protect the public interest (see paragraph 74 below). In the applicant’s case, he had not been denied the very essence of his right to be elected. The State, for its part, had an obligation to prosecute criminal acts and to take measures to ensure that criminal proceedings were not unduly protracted. The applicant had been hiding from prosecution in Russia, which showed that he had deliberately breached Lithuanian law by avoiding arrest which had earlier been sanctioned by a court (see paragraph 14 above). The Supreme Administrative Court did not find erroneous the argument put forward by the Central Electoral Commission that “the applicant sought immunity status as a candidate in his own interests, which essentially had no connection with his electoral rights”. One could not dismiss the likelihood that if immunity from prosecution was granted, the applicant could return to Lithuania, and would leave the country before his immunity expired [elected members of municipal councils do not have immunity from prosecution, see paragraph 69 below]. This would undermine society’s trust in the State and in the authorities’ duty to investigate crimes and prosecute perpetrators to protect society from attempts to commit crime.

The Supreme Administrative Court also emphasised that the prosecutor’s request to lift the applicant’s immunity had no connection with his participation in the municipal elections; nor was it intended to prevent the applicant from being elected. In fact, the criminal proceedings had started long before the municipal elections, the date of which was not announced by the Seimas until July 2006. The applicant therefore had plenty of time to return to Lithuania from hiding in Russia and to testify in the criminal case, thus also being able to fully take part in the municipal elections.

Whilst de facto residing in the Russian Federation, the applicant took part in the municipal elections in Lithuania on 25 February 2007, and was successfully elected.

On 23 April 2007 the Central Electoral Commission granted a request submitted by the applicant to annul his powers as a member of the municipal council.

In the spring of 2007, A.V., a member of the Homeland Union (Tėvynės Sąjunga) political party, who was elected to the Seimas for the term from 2004 to 2008 representing the Dzūkija constituency, became mayor of the Alytus district municipality and therefore resigned from the Seimas.

In April 2007 the Central Electoral Commission consequently announced new elections to the Seimas in that constituency.

In July 2007, the Labour Party decided to take part in the parliamentary elections in the Dzūkija constituency, which were to take place on 7 and, if necessary, on 21 October (second round of voting). The Labour Party confirmed the applicant as its candidate in that constituency.

On 4 September 2007, the Central Electoral Commission confirmed the applicant as a candidate in the Seimas elections.

On 5 September 2007, the Central Electoral Commission announced the list of ten candidates who were to stand in that single-member constituency. The applicant’s name was among those listed, and the electoral campaign started on that day.

On the same day, a spokesperson for the State President stated that the President found it ‘odd that a person who had asked for political asylum in Russia, decried the Lithuanian institutions and was being searched for by the Lithuanian law-enforcement authorities, could be registered as a candidate in the parliamentary elections’.

On the basis of a request by the prosecutor, on 6 September 2007 the Central Electoral Commission decided that the applicant could be arrested or his liberty could be otherwise restricted during the electoral campaign, until he was elected and took the oath as a parliamentarian.

The applicant appealed through his lawyer. He relied, inter alia, on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

By a final decision of 13 September 2007, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal. It noted that the immunities of candidates in municipal elections were analogous to those applied in the context of elections to the Seimas. The grounds for lifting the applicant’s immunity had already been decided by the res judicata Supreme Administrative Court decision of 12 February 2007 (see paragraphs 19 and 20 above). No new factual circumstances had been brought to the court’s attention to justify a different ruling.

The applicant, accompanied by a group of Labour Party Members of Parliament, returned to Vilnius from Moscow on 26 September 2007. On the same day he was arrested, signed the notice of the offences of which he was suspected, was questioned and remanded in custody.

At a hearing before the Vilnius City Second District Court of 27 September 2007, at which the applicant was present, the court decided to vary the remand measure to house arrest. The court noted that the earlier court order to arrest and detain the applicant had been adopted whilst he was being searched for (see paragraph 14 above). Now, that he had returned to Lithuania from Russia, and was not refusing to testify, a milder remand measure could be imposed. The court thus ordered the applicant to stay at his home in Kėdainiai town from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m., not to leave the Kėdainiai town area, not to communicate with the three other suspects in his criminal case, and not to attend public places (nesilankyti viešosiose vietose).

On 1 October 2007 the applicant requested the Vilnius Regional Court to release him from house arrest, claiming that such a remand measure interfered with his electoral rights, in particular, to meet with voters in the Dzūkija electoral district. The applicant relied on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. He also mentioned that he wished to leave Kėdainiai town so that he could visit a medical establishment in another town.

For his part, the prosecutor lodged an appeal with the Vilnius Regional Court, urging it to impose pre-trial detention on the applicant.

During the first round of voting in the Dzūkija single-member constituency, which took place on 7 October 2007, the applicant and another candidate received, respectively, 20 and 30 per cent of the votes. They would thus compete in a second round of elections, which was scheduled for 21 October.

By a final ruling of 8 October, the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the lower court’s decision to place the applicant under house arrest, with the exception that he was now allowed to visit public places from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The prohibition on his leaving Kėdainiai town remained effective. The court held that the applicant should be kept under house arrest in order to protect interests important to society: he had earlier been hiding from the prosecutor, the sums not accounted for by the Labour Party amounted to millions of Lithuanian litai, and there was reason to believe that he could obstruct the investigation. The court also considered that house arrest would not interfere with the applicant’s electoral rights or with his business or family interests.

On 9 October 2007, the Labour Party asked the Central Electoral Commission to intervene as an intermediary with a view to the prosecutors mitigating the remand measure, house arrest, so that the applicant could compete in the parliamentary electoral campaign on equal grounds.

On 11 October 2007 the Central Electoral Commission answered in the negative: should it express any opinion about the reasonableness of the applicant’s remand measure, this could be interpreted as undue interference with the courts’ competence and a breach of the principle of separation of powers.

On 10 October 2007, the applicant himself asked the prosecutors to modify the remand measure for the period of 10-21 October, and to allow him to leave Kėdainiai town so that he could go to the Dzūkija constituency, situated about 115 kilometres away, to meet the voters and compete with the other candidate on equal terms. The applicant stated that his meetings with the voters during the second round of elections would start on 12 October. He also added a two-page document describing the schedule of meetings between members of his party, including some renowned party members, and voters. From the documents in the Court’s possession it transpires that those meetings had already taken place from 28 September to 7 October, that is, before the first voting round, in the Dzūkija constituency. The schedule indicated that the applicant would have taken part in those meetings had the prosecutors allowed him to meet the voters.

By a decision of 15 October 2007, the prosecutor rejected the applicant’s request. He noted that the applicant had earlier made public statements that he could lead the electoral campaign even without physically being in Lithuania. For the prosecutor, the applicant could also take part in the electoral campaign by other means provided for by law, and without violating the conditions of his house arrest. The prosecutor stressed that house arrest had been imposed on the applicant by a court ruling of 27 September 2007 and had been upheld by a higher court on 8 October 2007. Accordingly, the applicant must have known in advance, and before making plans for meeting voters, about the limitations his house arrest entailed.

On 16 October 2007 the Labour Party asked the prosecutor to permit the applicant to leave Kėdainiai town for the Dzūkija constituency during the electoral campaign. The following day the prosecutor rejected that request, relying on the grounds set out by the earlier court rulings of 27 September and 8 October, and the prosecutor’s decision of 15 October.

On 17 October 2007 the applicant also lodged an appeal with the higher prosecutor, asking him to modify the remand measure, house arrest, and to permit him to meet voters “eye-to-eye” in order to compete in the elections on equal grounds with the other candidate. The applicant also insisted that he wanted permission to leave Kėdainiai town in order to visit doctors in other towns and for his business interests. Quoting certain information in the press, the applicant insisted that there had been a political decision to prevent him from becoming elected.

The applicant’s appeal was dismissed by the higher prosecutor on 19 October. The prosecutor noted that the applicant had known of the final Vilnius Regional Court ruling of 8 October 2007, which was not amenable to appeal, but had ignored it. Despite the adoption of that ruling, he had drawn up a schedule of meetings with voters. There were no new circumstances warranting a change in the applicant’s remand measure. The prosecutor’s decision was sent to the applicant on 19 October 2007, and could have been appealed against to the court.

The applicant claimed that he had received that decision on 26 October 2007.

During the second round of voting in the Dzūkija constituency on 21 October 2007, the applicant received 5,094 votes (or 44 per cent of the votes cast). The other candidate, who was a member of the Homeland Union political party, received 6,596 votes (or 56 per cent of the votes cast), and thus became a member of the Seimas.

On 17 November 2007 the applicant was re-elected as chairman of the Labour Party.

After the parliamentary elections, the prosecutor granted or refused a number of the applicant’s requests to leave his home in Kėdainiai. In particular, in October 2007 the prosecutor permitted the applicant to leave Kėdainiai town so that he could visit, during the daytime – between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. – a cemetery in a village situated in Kėdainiai district for All Saints Day on 1 November 2007.

In November 2007 the applicant asked the prosecutor for permission to visit the Kėdainiai sports school, situated in Vilainiai village in the Kėdainiai district, where the Labour Party congress (rinkiminis suvažiavimas) was to take place. The applicant pointed out that Vilainiai village and Kėdainiai town “touched each other on the map” (Vilainių kaimas ir Kėdainių miestas ribojasi, todėl Kėdainių sporto mokykla yra praktiškai ant kaimo ir miesto ribos). He also asked the prosecutor for permission to attend the same sports school to play tennis four times a week, a sport that the applicant had practised previously. The prosecutor granted those requests.

In November 2007 the prosecutor permitted the applicant to leave Kėdainiai town to visit, later that month, doctors in Kaunas, a town situated approximately 50 kilometres from Kėdainiai town.

On 26 November 2007 the applicant also asked the prosecutor for permission to take part in a live show, “Dancing with the Stars”, which was to be filmed between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. on 30 November 2007 in the Vikonda leisure and entertainment centre (pramogų centre) in Kėdainiai. The prosecutor declined the request, holding that the timing was incompatible with the house arrest, which was imposed on the applicant from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m. The prosecutor pointed out that the applicant had known beforehand about the house arrest conditions, which did not match those of the television show.

In December 2007 the prosecutor also refused a request made by the applicant two days previously to be permitted to travel to Brussels to attend a meeting of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party (Europos demokratų partija), scheduled for later that month. The prosecutor referred to the ruling of the Vilnius Regional Court of 8 October 2007 and noted that such a request could not be granted because the applicant had been avoiding justice for a long time. Moreover, “the house arrest prohibited the applicant from even leaving the area of Kėdainiai town’.

With the prosecutor’s permission, in December 2007 the applicant visited a cardiology clinic in Kaunas. The doctors there recommended that the applicant return to that clinic for consultations and for more profound tests in January 2008. Having obtained a fresh authorisation by the prosecutor, in January 2008 the applicant stayed in the Kaunas clinic for one night and underwent several more tests later that month.

In February 2008, the applicant asked the prosecutor to permit him to stay eleven days in a convalescence sanatorium in Druskininkai (a town situated approximately 180 kilometres from Kėdainiai). The applicant referred to the Kaunas cardiologists’ recommendations and stated that the necessary procedures could be performed only in that particular sanatorium. The prosecutor granted the request, also stressing that the applicant had earlier requested to see the material in the case file, but had never come to the prosecutor’s office to see them. The applicant had until 22 February 2008 to do so (see the following paragraph).

The pre-trial investigation in the criminal case was terminated on 28 December 2007, and the applicant was then allowed to see the material in the case file until 22 February 2008 and, if necessary, to make requests to supplement the file.

According to a survey of the press carried out at the applicant’s request, from April 2006 until February 2008, the words “Labour Party ... suspect”, “Uspaskich ... suspect” had been mentioned in 210 press articles.

On 14 April 2008 the criminal case was transferred to the Vilnius Regional Court for examination.

On 29 April 2008 the Vilnius Regional Court released the applicant from house arrest. The court modified that remand measure to an obligation not to leave his place of residence in Kėdainiai town for longer than seven days without informing the authorities, and to pay bail of LTL 1,500,000. The applicant also signed an agreement not to communicate with the four other persons suspected in the criminal case.

During the parliamentary elections of October 2008, the applicant and another member of his political party, who was a co-accused in the criminal case, were elected to the Seimas from 2008 to 2012 for the Labour Party. They therefore obtained immunity from prosecution. In December 2008 the Seimas allowed the applicant’s prosecution and the restriction of his freedom. The Seimas also permitted the prosecution of the applicant’s co-accused.

By a ruling of 26 June 2009 of the Court of Appeal, the remand measure – the obligation not to leave the applicant’s place of residence – was revoked. The other remand measure, bail, remained in force.

On 7 June 2009, the applicant was elected to the European Parliament as a Labour Party’s Member. He resigned his parliamentary seat in Lithuania, because under Lithuanian law a Member of the European Parliament could not be a member of the Seimas at the same time (see paragraph 68 below). The Lithuanian authorities then asked the European Parliament to lift the applicant’s immunity in order to allow his prosecution. The prosecutor stated, inter alia, that as a result of fraudulent book-keeping of the Labour Party and the submission of such information to the Central Electoral Commission and the tax authorities in 2005-07, the State had suffered serious pecuniary damage in the sum of about LTL 6,000,000 (approximately EUR 1,700,000), because appropriations had been allocated to the Labour Party from the State budget.

Having heard the applicant, and having had regard to a report by its Committee on Legal Affairs, in September 2010 the European Parliament lifted the applicant’s immunity, thus allowing the criminal proceedings in Lithuania to continue (decision P7_TA-PROV(2010)0296). The European Parliament noted that the applicant had been charged with offences of false accounting in relation to the financing of a political party during a period prior to his election to the European Parliament. No cogent evidence had been adduced as to the existence of any fumus persecutionis and the offences with which the applicant had been charged had nothing to do with his activities as a Member of the European Parliament.

In October 2012 the applicant and two of his co-accused were all elected to the Seimas of 2012-16 for the Labour Party. The applicant then asked the Central Electoral Commission in Lithuania to annul his mandate as a Member of the European Parliament. His request was granted. At the prosecutors’ request, the Seimas lifted the applicant’s immunity and the criminal proceedings resumed.

By a judgment of 12 July 2013 the Vilnius Regional Court found the applicant guilty of fraudulent accounting committed in complicity with three other persons, under Articles 24 § 4, 205 § 1, 220 § 1 and 222 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The court sentenced the applicant to four years’ imprisonment.

The applicant and the prosecutor appealed against the conviction.

Following reorganisation of the Labour Party, the criminal case against it was discontinued by the same judgment of the Vilnius Regional Court, applying by analogy Article 3 § 1 (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides that criminal proceedings cannot be conducted in respect of a deceased person. In particular, on 14 May 2013 the legal personality of the Labour Party ceased to exist after its reorganisation, and on the same day it was struck from the Register of Legal Entities. The Labour Party merged with the Leiboristai political party, and on the same day a new legal entity was registered under the name of the Labour Party (Darbo partija (Leiboristai)). Later that year the latter party merged with another political party – the Christians Party (Krikščionių partija). It was registered as a new legal entity but under the previous name, the Labour Party (Darbo partija).

According to the Government, that new party continued to use the same logo as it had used before May 2013.

On 25 May 2014 the applicant was again elected to the European Parliament as a Labour Party member. In June 2014 the Central Electoral Commission in Lithuania granted the applicant’s request to resign his seat in the Seimas.

At the request of the Lithuanian courts, in March 2015 the European Parliament lifted the applicant’s immunity. This time the European Parliament noted, inter alia, that the criminal proceedings at issue were identical, in terms of content, to the proceedings in respect of which it had already lifted the applicant’s immunity in 2010 (see paragraph 57 above). At that time the applicant had been charged with, in essence, heading an organised group with the aim of committing a number of criminal offences, with disregard for his duty, as party chairman, to monitor the party’s finances. For example, fictitious books were allegedly kept in order to conceal revenue and expenditure. In general, he was alleged to have frequently given instructions not to officially declare or record various business and financial transactions. From the documents in the European Parliament’s possession it was clear that the definition of the offences giving rise to the charges against the applicant had always remained the same. Moreover, no convincing evidence was available to demonstrate fumus persecutionis. The offences of which the applicant was accused had nothing to do with his work as a Member of the European Parliament. Lastly, the European Parliament noted that the decision on the waiver of immunity in no way constituted a statement of opinion regarding the applicant’s guilt or innocence, as this was the subject of national proceedings.

On 1 February 2016 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction under Article 222 of the Criminal Code for fraudulent management of the Labour Party’s accounts, having acted in an organised group. He was acquitted under Article 182 of the Criminal Code. The criminal case under Article 220 of the Criminal Code was discontinued because of prescription.

On the basis of an appeal on points of law lodged by the prosecutor, the criminal case is currently pending before the Supreme Court.


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4 - Positive obligations;Article 4-1 - Trafficking in human beings;Article 4-2 - Forced labour);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Robert Spano

The applicants, Bangladeshi migrants living in Greece without a work permit, were recruited on different dates between October 2012 and February 2013 in Athens and other places, to work on the region’s biggest strawberry farm, at Manolada, a village of two thousand inhabitants in the regional district of Elis, in the western part of the Peloponnese peninsula. In that area there are a number of production units, of various sizes, specialising in the intensive cultivation of strawberries. Exports account for 70% of the local production, which covers 90% of the Greek market. Most of the workers are irregular migrants from Pakistan and Bangladesh. Some are employed on the farms permanently and others only on a seasonal basis.

The production unit in question was run by T.A. and N.V., the applicants’ employers.

The applicants were among a total of 150 workers divided into three teams, each one headed by a Bangladeshi national who reported to T.A.

The workers had been promised a wage of 22 euros (EUR) for seven hours’ work and three euros for each hour of overtime, with three euros per day deducted for food. They worked in greenhouses every day from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. picking strawberries under the supervision of armed guards employed by T.A. They lived in makeshift shacks made of cardboard, nylon and bamboo, without toilets or running water. According to them, their employers had warned them that they would only receive their wages if they continued to work for them.

On three occasions – in late February 2013, mid-March 2013 and on 15 April 2013 – the workers went on strike demanding payment of their unpaid wages, but without success.

On 17 April 2013 the employers recruited other Bangladeshi migrants to work in the fields. Fearing that they would not be paid, between one hundred and one hundred and fifty workers from the 2012-2013 season who worked in the fields started moving towards the two employers, who were on the spot, in order to demand their wages. One of the armed guards then opened fire against the workers, seriously injuring thirty of them, including twenty-one of the applicants (listed under numbers 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 33, 38, 39 and 42). The wounded were taken to hospital and were subsequently questioned by police.

On 18 and 19 April 2013 the police arrested N.V. and T.A., together with the guard who had fired the shots and another armed overseer. During the preliminary investigation by the local police, a number of other Bangladeshis, including some who had worked with the suspects, were used as interpreters.

On 19 April 2013 the Amaliada public prosecutor charged the four suspects with attempted murder and other offences, and also, in response to a request from the prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, with human trafficking under Article 323A of the Criminal Code. The charge of attempted murder was subsequently reclassified as grievous bodily harm.

On 22 April 2013 the Amaliada public prosecutor acknowledged that thirty-five workers – including four team-leaders –, who had all been injured during the incident, were victims of human trafficking, thus making them lawful residents under section 12 of Law no. 3064/2002 (on the repression of human trafficking, crimes against sexual freedom, child pornography, and more generally sexual exploitation).

On 8 May 2013 one hundred and twenty other workers, including the twenty-one applicants who had not been injured (listed under numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 27, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40 and 41), applied to the Amaliada public prosecutor for charges of human trafficking, attempted murder and assault, in respect of them also, to be brought against the four defendants. They stated that they had been employed on the farm run by T.A. and N.V. in conditions of human trafficking and forced labour and that they were part of the group which had come under fire. Relying on the Additional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, known as the “Palermo Protocol”, of December 2000 (“to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons”), they asked the public prosecutor to bring charges under Article 323A of the Criminal Code against their employers, accusing them of exploiting them in a work-related context. They further alleged that, on 17 April 2013, they had also been present at the scene of the incident and that they had gone there to demand their unpaid wages, with the result that they were also victims of the offences committed against the other thirty-five complainants.

The police questioned each of the above-mentioned twenty-one applicants, who signed a record containing their statements, which had been given under oath and were accompanied by their photos, and they forwarded the statements to the public prosecutor.

In decision 26/2014 of 4 August 2014, the Amaliada public prosecutor rejected the application of the one hundred and twenty workers. He emphasised that those workers had been sought in order to give testimony during the preliminary investigation and that only one hundred and two of them had been traced and interviewed (including the twenty-one applicants mentioned in paragraph 12 above). He noted that it transpired from their statements and other material in the file that their allegations did not correspond to the reality. He explained that if they had really been the victims of the offences complained of, they would have gone to the police immediately on 17 April 2013, like the thirty-five other workers had done, and would not have waited until 8 May 2013. In his view, the claim that the complainants had been afraid and had left their huts was not credible because they had been close to the scene of the incident and, when the police arrived, they could have returned to make their complaints known. He further noted that only four out of the hundred and two complainants interviewed had stated they had been injured and that, unlike the thirty-five workers mentioned above, none of those four workers had gone to hospital. Lastly, he observed that all the complainants had stated that they had made statements to the police after learning that they would receive residence permits as victims of human trafficking.

On 28 January 2015 the public prosecutor at Patras Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of the one hundred and twenty workers against decision no. 26/2014 on the grounds that the material in the case file did not substantiate their allegations and that they had sought to present themselves as victims of human trafficking in order to obtain residence permits (decision no. 3/2015).

The accused were committed to stand trial in Patras Assize Court. Only N.V. was charged with committing the offence of human trafficking. The three other defendants, namely T.A. and the two armed overseers, were charged with aiding and abetting that offence. The hearings began on 6 June 2014 and ended on 30 July 2014. The thirty-five workers mentioned above joined the proceedings as civil parties and were represented by their lawyers V. Kerasiotis and M. Karabeïdis, whose fees were paid by the Greek Council for Refugees and the Hellenic League for Human Rights.

In his oral submissions the public prosecutor pointed out that the applicants who had been injured in the incident had been living and working in Greece without any permit, at the mercy of networks which exploited human beings and in conditions which enabled them to be characterised as victims of human trafficking. In his view both the material element and the mental element of this offence were made out in the present case.

The public prosecutor further emphasised that exploitation in a labour context was part of the notion of exploitation provided for in European and other international law instruments as a means of committing the offence of human trafficking. He indicated that Article 4 of the Convention and Article 22 of the Greek Constitution prohibited forced or compulsory labour. He explained that the notion of exploitation through work included all acts which constituted a breach of employment law, such as the provisions concerning working hours, working conditions and workers’ insurance. In his view, that form of exploitation also obtained through the performance of work for the benefit of the offender himself.

Referring to the facts of the case, the public prosecutor explained that the employer, N.V., had not paid the workers for six months, that he had only paid them a very small sum for food, deducted from their wages, and had promised to pay the rest later. He observed as follows: that the defendants were unscrupulous and imposed themselves by making threats and carrying weapons; the workers laboured in extreme physical conditions, had to work long hours and were constantly humiliated; on 17 April 2013, N.V. had informed the workers that he would not pay them and would kill them, with the help of his co-accused, if they did not carry on working for him; as the workers had not given in to the threats, he had told them to leave and said that he would take on another team in their place and that he would burn down their huts if they refused to leave. He lastly noted that, when he recruited them, N.V. had promised the complainants makeshift shelters and a daily wage of EUR 22 – which in his view was the only solution for the victims to be sure of a means of subsistence – and that N.V. had thus succeeded, at that point, in obtaining their consent in order to be able to exploit them subsequently.

The public prosecutor asserted that the incident of 17 April 2013 was illustrative of a situation of over-exploitation and barbaric treatment to which the major landowners in the region had subjected the migrant workers. He took the view that the incident had been a barbaric and armed aggression by Greek employers against the migrants, conjuring up images of a “southern slave-trade” which had no place in Greece.

At the hearing, one of the witnesses, an officer from the police station of Amaliada, stated that one or two days before the incident of 17 April 2013 some workers had gone to the police station to complain that their employers had refused to pay them their wages and that one of his colleagues had subsequently had a telephone conversation with N.V. on this subject.

In a judgment of 30 July 2014, the Assize Court acquitted the four defendants on the charge of trafficking in human beings, on the ground that the material element of the offence was not made out in the present case. It convicted one of the armed guards and T.A. of grievous bodily harm and unlawful use of firearms, sentencing them to prison for terms of fourteen years and seven months and eight years and seven months, respectively. As regards the overseer who had been responsible for the shots, it took the view that he had not intended to kill those who were attacked in the incident and that he had been trying to make them move away so that the newly recruited workers would not be approached by them. As to N.V., it acquitted him on the ground that it had not been established that he was one of the workers’ employers (and therefore that he was obliged to pay them their wages) or that he had been involved as an instigator of the armed attack against them. The Assize Court commuted their prison sentences to a financial penalty of 5 euros per day of detention. It also ordered the two convicted men to pay the sum of EUR 1,500 to the thirty-five workers who were recognised as victims (about EUR 43 per person).

The Assize Court noted that the workers’ conditions of employment had provided that they would receive: EUR 22 for seven hours of work and EUR 3 for each additional hour; food, of which the cost would be deducted from their wages; and materials for the construction of electrified huts next to their plantations, at their employers’ expense, to satisfy their basic accommodation needs – while allowing them the option of living elsewhere in the region. It noted that these conditions had been brought to the knowledge of the workers by their fellow countrymen who were team-leaders.

The Assize Court thus observed that the workers had been informed of their conditions of employment and that they had accepted them after finding them satisfactory. As to the amount of the wages, it found that this was the usual amount paid by the other producers in the region and the workers had not been obliged to accept it. In the court’s view, the information provided to the workers by their team-leaders and their compatriots working for other employers about the reliable payment of wages constituted a major factor in the choice of T.A. as employer. The Assize Court further noted that, until the end of February 2013, the workers had not made any complaint about their employer, whether concerning his conduct or the payment of wages, and they had only started to complain at the end of February or the beginning of March 2013 about a delay in payment.

Moreover, the Assize Court rejected the workers’ allegations that they had not received any wages and had been subjected to a threatening and intimidating attitude, on the part of the defendants, throughout the duration of their work, on the following grounds: those allegations had been expressed for the first time at the hearing, and not at the stage of the preliminary enquiries or investigation; certain intimidating acts had led the complainants to leave their place of work; and the description of these acts was particularly imprecise and vague. The Assize Court also noted that it transpired from the testimony of the workers that, during their free time, they were able to move freely around the region, do their shopping in shops which operated by agreement with the defendants, play cricket and take part in an association set up by their compatriots. It added that it had not been shown that T.A. had, under false pretences and by means of promises, coerced the workers into agreeing to work for him by taking advantage of their situation of vulnerability, especially as it found that they were not in such a situation.

The Assize Court took the view that it had also been shown that the relations between the workers and their employers had been governed by a binding employment relationship and its conditions were not intended to trap the workers or to lead to their domination by the employers. On that point, it explained that the conditions had not led the complainants to live in a state of exclusion from the outside world, without any possibility for them to abandon this relationship and look for another job. It further noted that the workers had been in a position to negotiate their conditions of employment at the time of their recruitment and that their unlawful presence in Greece had not been used by their employers as a means of coercion to force them to continue working.

The Assize Court indicated that, for the notion of vulnerability to be constituted, the victim had to be in a state of impoverishment such that his refusal to submit to the offender would appear absurd; in other words the victim had to be in a state of absolute weakness preventing him from protecting himself. It added that the victim would be exploited, as a result of his vulnerability, if he unconditionally submitted himself to the offender and was cut off from the outside world, which in the court’s view was not the case here since: (a) the relations between the workers and their employers had been governed by a binding employment relationship, and (b) its conditions were not intended to trap the workers or to lead to their domination by the employers, such that the workers might be cut off from the outside world and find it impossible to withdraw from the employment relationship and find another job. The Assize Court further observed that most of the workers had stated that they would have continued to work for their employers had they been paid their wages.

Lastly, as to the workers’ allegation that they had received death threats from the defendants – an allegation that it did not accept –, the Assize Court took the view that, if that statement had been true the workers would have left their place of work without hesitation. The fact of fearing for their lives would have prevailed over any other consideration (such as: their unpaid wage demands; their need to earn a living, which allegedly could not have been satisfied in view of the objective inability to find another job; and all the other arguments that the workers had put forward to justify the fact that they had continued to work).

On 30 July 2014 the convicted defendants appealed against the judgment of the Assize Court. The appeal, which is still pending before that same court, has suspensive effect.

On 21 October 2014 the workers’ lawyers lodged an application with the public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation asking him to appeal against the Assize Court judgment. In their application they submitted that the Assize Court had not adequately examined the charge of human trafficking. They took the view that, in order to determine whether that court had properly applied Article 323A of the Criminal Code, it was necessary to examine whether the accused had taken advantage of any vulnerability of the foreign nationals in order to exploit them.

On 27 October 2014 the prosecutor refused to lodge an appeal. He gave reasons for his decision, indicating only that the statutory conditions for an appeal on points of law were not met. As a result of this decision, the part of the 30 July 2014 judgment concerning human trafficking became “irrevocable” (αμετάκλητη).


No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Obtain attendance of witnesses)

Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in 1950 and is detained in Dob pri Mirni.

On 18 March 2006 a person called A.Č. called the police and informed them that three people had been stabbed in the town of Izola. Only the injured people, namely Š.A., S.M, and F.M, were found at the place of the incident. A few hours later the applicant and his two sons, A.R. and E.R., were arrested on suspicion of attempted murder.

On 20 March 2006 the applicant, A.R. and E.R. were brought before the investigating judge. The applicant, who was assisted by counsel, gave the following statement in his defence. He alleged that he had intended to meet Š.A. in order to demand that he pay rent for workers who had previously been accommodated in his flat and to cancel their residence registration at that address. Before he set off to a bar where Š.A.’s workers met after work (hereinafter “the bar”), he telephoned his sons and asked them to come and assist him in case he met any trouble from Š.A. After Š.A. refused to resolve the matter, the applicant left the bar and was followed by between ten and twelve of Š.A.’s workers. Š.A. and F.M., one of the workers, started hitting the applicant all over his body. His sons, standing nearby, came to his aid. After Š.A. hit A.R., the applicant, an electrical fitter by profession, took out the knife he used for work, which had a seven- to eight-centimetre blade, and began brandishing it. Among others, he stabbed Š.A. several times in the back. Š.A. then backed off and the applicant and his sons fled the scene. Once at home the applicant gave the knife to his wife, who disposed of it. The applicant also stated that the only injuries he had sustained had been some bruises on his head.

The applicant’s sons stated that their father had met with Š.A. and another person and that a fight had started. When they had gone to help him, a number of other men had approached and had started beating them. The applicant’s sons also stated that they had not been carrying any knives themselves. According to them, E.R. had defended himself with a wooden clothes hanger.

The injured parties, S.M., F.M., and Š.A., were also questioned in the investigation and they stated, inter alia, as follows.

F.M. stated that after leaving the bar he had been attacked by the applicant, who had hit him on the nose with the handle of the knife. S.M. and Š.A. had arrived after that and the applicant had again attacked F.M. E.R. had attacked S.M. while A.R. had attacked Š.A. In the course of the fight the applicant had stabbed F.M. and had also attacked S.M. and Š.A., before fleeing the scene. The applicant and his sons had had knives. The applicant’s knife had had a ten-centimetre blade.

S.M. stated that he had heard people saying there was a crowd outside the bar, he had gone out and found F.M. being hit in the face and running. He had then seen the applicant attacking F.M. He had attempted to separate them, but E.R. had stabbed him. E.R. had then fled and the applicant had stabbed him several times, which had caused him to faint.

Š.A. testified that after being told that something was going on outside the bar he had gone out and found S.M. and F.M. being attacked. He had attempted to help S.M., who had been stabbed in the neck by the applicant, and F.M. He had been stabbed in the back several times by the applicant.

In addition to the accused and the injured parties the investigating judge questioned five witnesses – A.Č., M.H., Đ.Š., Še.A. and I.B.

A.Č. testified that he had noticed the applicant and his sons, together with F.M. and another person, standing a few metres from the bar. Š.A. had approached them and a few seconds later they had started to fight. According to A.Č., only those six people had been involved in the fight. He had not seen any weapons, but had seen blood on Š.A.’s shirt. In addition, the third victim (S.M.) had been holding his neck. A.Č. also stated that he had called to his acquaintance M.H. to telephone the police.

M.H. gave a fairly detailed account. He explained that he had seen the applicant in the bar arguing with Š.A. and then leaving around thirty minutes before the fight. Twenty minutes later F.M. and S.M. had left the bar as well. Š.A. had received a call and had gone out. After being alerted by A.Č. and seeing the fight through the window, he had gone out of the bar and had seen the applicant and his sons, as well as S.M., F.M., and Š.A., fighting. He testified that the applicant and his sons had been the weaker parties in the fight until the applicant had pulled out a knife, saying, “Now let us see”, and using it to attack Š.A., F.M. and S.M. He added that he had not seen the applicant’s sons handling any knives and also described the applicant’s knife as having a blade of about eight to ten centimetres.

Đ.Š., the third witness, stated that between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. on the day in question he had first seen the applicant and later his sons park their cars in front of the bar where the events at issue took place. Đ.Š. and his friend had then approached the bar and had seen S.M. lying unconscious on the ground.

On 10 April 2006 the investigating judge questioned I.B. and Še.A. in the presence of the district public prosecutor and counsel for A.R., who were also allowed to put questions. I.B. told the investigating judge that he had been walking home with Še.A. when he had seen the applicant, his sons, and F.M. coming out of the bar. The applicant had had his hand in his pocket and appeared to be holding something. He had seen him pointing at F.M. and heard him telling his sons, “This is [F.M.]”. He had later seen his brother-in-law (S.M.) lying on the ground with blood on his head. The police and an ambulance had arrived.

Še.A. stated that he and I.B. had been on their way home when F.M. had come out of the bar and told them to wait. Še.A. had then noticed the applicant and his sons. He had seen the applicant pointing at F.M. and saying something, whereupon the applicant had gone towards F.M. and hit him in the face with the handle of his knife. As F.M. had moved away, towards the bar, one of the applicant’s sons had approached. Both S.M. and Š.A. had come out of the bar at that moment and a fight had broken out between E.R., S.M., and the applicant and F.M., A.R. and Š.A. Še.A. had approached the fighting men and tried to separate E.R. and S.M. E.R. had then struck S.M. with a knife, but when Še.A. had approached, he had turned to him. Še.A. had got scared and had run away. Še.A. described the knife as being old, with a blade of between ten to fifteen centimetres, but could not remember further details. Še.A. stated during the questioning that his work visa was valid until January 2007.

In May 2008 the court summoned the witnesses, including I.B. and Še.A., to a hearing that had been scheduled for 11 September 2008. The summons for I.B. was served on his neighbour while Še.A.’s was served on his wife. The court subsequently cancelled the hearing and ordered that the witnesses, including I.B. and Še.A., be summoned to a hearing on 25 September 2008. However, since I.B. and Še.A. no longer had a place of residence that was registered in Slovenia, the court on 21 November 2008 asked the Police Department for International Cooperation to investigate where the two witnesses were living. Further to another request from the court, the Izola Administrative Unit informed it that Še.A. had cancelled his residence status in Izola on 17 January 2008 and that I.B. had cancelled his on 20 December 2006. It appears that the police registered their enquiries about the whereabouts of I.B. and Še.A. in the Schengen system.

After receiving information from the authorities of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Slovenian police informed the court on 23 January 2009 of I.B.’s address, whence the court subsequently sent the summons. On 20 March 2009 the Court received a statement from I.B., given to a notary, in which he excused himself from attending the hearing, saying that he needed a visa to enter Slovenia. However, in order to comply with the summons, he included his testimony, which he had given to the notary. He stated that he did not remember exactly when the incident in question had happened but thought it was around two years earlier, when he had had a temporary job as a construction worker in Slovenia. He had at that time been in the process of moving from the applicant’s apartment to Š.A.’s apartment. As to the incident, he said that he remembered seeing S.M. lying on the ground and the police and ambulance arriving at the scene.

In April 2009, further to indications from the authorities of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the injured parties’ counsel that Še.A. was in Italy, the Italian authorities checked their data, but stated that Še.A. had never had any registered address in that country. On 18 May 2009 the Office of the General Police Administration informed the court that the border police had talked to Še.A. when he had crossed the Slovenian border. He had given an address in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Italy and his mobile telephone number.

After his wife received the summons at his address in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Še.A. wrote to the court to say that his father was very ill and that therefore he could not travel for the following two to three weeks. In addition, he said that he had been working in Italy since September 2008 and could not travel to Slovenia as he would risk losing his job. He added that he had already given a statement regarding the charges against the applicant and the other defendants and had nothing to add. The court received the letter on 25 May 2009.

On 16 May 2006 the district state prosecutor lodged an indictment against the applicant, E.R. and A.R. for the attempted murder of Š.A., S.M. and F.M.

Seven hearings were held, taking place on 25 September 2008, 27 November 2008, 29 January 2009, 19 February 2009, 10 April 2009, 29 May 2009 and 17 June 2009.

At the hearing of 29 May 2009, at which the applicant and his counsel were present, the court noted that Še.A. had sent a letter in reply to the summons (see paragraph 23 above). After the letter had been read out, the panel of judges took a decision that his and I.B.’s statements to the investigating judge should be read out at the hearing, finding that the conditions set out in point 1 of the first paragraph of section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Act had been met (see paragraph 39 below). The record of the hearing shows that no comments on the reading out of the statements were made by those present.

The accused, the injured parties and the witnesses A.Č., M.H. and Đ.Š. were examined at the hearings.

- The applicant kept to the statement he had given to the investigating judge and repeated that he had acted in self-defence. He now alleged that the blade of the knife had been only three centimetres long.

- A.R. maintained that he had gone to help his father but the workers had started to beat him as well. Š.A. had been on top of him, hitting him until he had managed to escape. A.R. also stated that he had had no plans to meet his brother in Izola that day.

- E.R. stated that he had only wanted to have a coffee with a friend but had ended up in a fight, and having to defend himself until he had passed out. He denied that he had had a knife that day and said that he had not seen his brother or father carrying one either.

- S.M. repeated what he had said during the investigation (see paragraph 12 above), adding some details about which of the three accused had stabbed him and where, attributing most of the injuries to the applicant. He explained that he had assumed that F.M. had been hit in the face as he had seen him holding his hand there and added that the applicant’s knife blade had been ten to fifteen centimetres long.

- F.M. added further details to his statement from the investigation (see paragraph 11 above), testifying how he had been stabbed by the applicant and that he had seen the applicant stabbing S.M. and Š.A. before fleeing the scene.

- Š.A. described how he had been stabbed by the applicant and his sons. He also testified that before arriving on the scene he had received a brief telephone call from Še.A., who had told him that the men had been attacked outside. When he had gone outside he had seen S.M. on his knees and the applicant stabbing him. Š.A. denied that the applicant or his sons had called him that day. He was asked to explain the difference between his testimony during the investigation, when he said he had fought with one of the applicant’s sons, and at the hearing, when he had said that he had not fought back. He stated that he had remembered the events better during the investigation.

- A.Č. repeated what he had said during the investigation (see paragraph 15 above).

- At his first examination M.H. repeated what he had said during the investigation (see paragraph 16 above). Six months later, he changed his statement and alleged, among other things, that the fight had started after Š.A. had first hit A.R.

- Đ.Š. stated that he had seen E.R. parking his car and going directly into the bar. He had arrived at the scene with his friends and had found S.M. lying unconscious on the floor.

The panel also questioned Dr G.R., the surgeon who had treated all three victims at the local hospital and who explained the severity of the individual wounds sustained by the victims. The court also obtained the testimony of two medical experts. Dr A.Š. made an assessment of the victims’ individual injuries, the most likely manner in which they had been sustained, the angles of the stab wounds, and so forth. The doctor stated that Š.A. had sustained four wounds to his back and a number of wounds to his chest. S.M. had been stabbed seven times from behind, five times in the neck and on the back of the head, once to the left shoulder and once in the left side of his chest. F.M. had been stabbed in the stomach. Dr D.M.S. performed a clinical examination of Š.A. in order to assess his wounds in more detail.

The panel also examined several documents that had been called in evidence. Medical reports relating to the applicant and his sons showed that they had sustained minor injuries, the applicant notably sustaining only a few contusions (on the right forearm, above the left scapula and on his left eye, which remained undamaged). Other evidence showed that the applicant had been in a dispute over workers hired by Š.A. who had vacated the applicant’s flat. Š.A. had not made a declaration of a change of residence to the competent administrative authority, although as an employer and new landlord he should have done so. Furthermore, telephone records showed that the applicant and Š.A. had had three conversations on the day of the incident. Moreover, A.R., the applicant’s son, had called his father a number of times that day just before the fight broke out.

On 19 June 2009 the Koper District Court panel found the applicant guilty of attempting to murder S.M., F.M. and Š.A. by stabbing the first in the neck, on the back of the head and the left side of his chest, the second in the left side of the stomach and the third in the back. Two of the offences had been aided and abetted by the applicant’s sons, who were each convicted of one count of attempted murder. The court sentenced the applicant to five years and ten months in prison, while his sons were both sentenced to one year and two months in prison.

In a judgment of fifty-four pages, the court established on the basis of the testimony, telephone and GPS data that the applicant had called Š.A. on the day of the attack in order to discuss the workers’ change of residence, but they had been unable to resolve the matter. Consequently, the applicant had gone to the bar with a view to get the workers to sign written statements concerning their change of residence. He had asked F.M., who had been in the bar with S.M., to sign the statement, but he had refused. After that the applicant had again called Š.A., but to no avail. Being informed of the situation by the applicant, A.R. and E.R. had joined him and they had together gone in search of F.M. and Š.A. They had stopped F.M. near the bar and the applicant had hit him in the face with the handle of the knife. F.M. had withdrawn in the direction of the bar, and had been joined by S.M. and Š.A., who had been informed about the attack by the telephone call from Še.A. A fight involving the six men had then started, with the accused being prepared for it as they had been equipped with knives. It had finished when the applicant and his sons had left the scene and Š.A. had called the police.

The court found that only five minutes had passed between F.M. being stopped by the applicant and his sons and the call to the police, while the fight and stabbing could not have lasted more than two minutes. In particular, the court established that Š.A. had received the call from Še.A. at two minutes and forty eight second past eight in the evening and that less than three minutes later Š.A. had called 113. In the meantime, he had been stabbed several times. As regards the other circumstances of the fight, such as who had hit whom, the court relied on the testimony of S.M., F.M., and the witnesses A.Č. and M.H. The court, taking into account the fact that the injured parties could not have been expected to pay particular attention to what was happening to others while they themselves were engaged in the fight, found their testimony mostly consistent, except for the question of when Š.A. had joined the fight. The court took the view on that point that the fight had only broken out after Š.A.’s arrival, contrary to what he himself had alleged. The court further found M.H.’s initial testimony (see paragraph 16 above) to be the more persuasive of the two, and that it was in line with the findings of the medical experts. It found that E.R. had initially fought with S.M., the applicant with F.M., and A.R. with Š.A. – a fact which the court found confirmed by the testimony of “S.M., F.M., and also the witnesses A.Č. and M.H., and Še.A.” Referring to M.H.’s initial testimony and the applicant’s statement during the investigation, which it found was also supported by Še.A.’s testimony, the court rejected the applicant’s statement at the hearing that his knife had only had a three-centimetre blade.

Regarding the applicant’s argument that he had acted in self-defence, the court found that “the statements given by the accused were contradictory and refuted self-defence ... [and] the evidence produced at the hearing completely excluded that possibility [of self-defence]”. The Court found that only the defendants and the three injured parties had engaged in the fight and that if Š.A. had wanted to attack the applicant he could easily have outnumbered the defendants. The applicant and his sons had been motivated by anger towards Š.A. and F.M., while S.M. had become involved because he had tried to protect F.M. As the applicant had failed to convince F.M. to cancel his residence status, he had resorted to violence. If the applicant had felt that he was in danger, he could simply have walked away. Instead, he had provoked a fight, together with his sons. The court also found that while the applicant had admitted to stabbing Š.A. several times in the back, he and the other two defendants had not addressed the fact that the injured parties had sustained other stab wounds too. Moreover, the court noted that none of the witnesses had testified that the applicant had lain on the floor and been kicked by the other men. The court found that since the defendants had been prepared for a fight in advance the injured parties should be believed when they stated that they had in fact been attacked and that they had responded by fighting back. It considered the injured parties’ description of how they had obtained the wounds to be persuasive. Having regard to the fact that the fight was of short duration, the court found that the defendants had pulled their knives out quickly and had quickly “finished with” the injured parties. The court further found that as the victims had sustained fourteen stab wounds altogether, it was plausible that the applicant had not been the only assailant, but that all three defendants had inflicted them. Finally, the court dismissed the applicant’s argument that he had pulled the knife out after being attacked by ten people as “unrealistic”.

In the judgment the court also explained the reasons for reading out I.B. and Še.A.’s statements. It noted that the two witnesses had not attended the hearing, despite being properly summoned, and that counsel for the defendants had been offered the possibility to attend their questioning during the investigation.

The applicant appealed to the Koper Higher Court, complaining, inter alia, that the first-instance court had violated his defence rights by relying on the record of the testimony that I.B. and Še.A. had given during the investigation.

On 7 July 2011 the higher court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. As regards the applicant’s alleged inability to cross-examine I.B. and Še.A. at the trial, the higher court considered that the applicant had had an opportunity to question the witnesses during the investigation. It noted that counsel for the applicant had been informed about the hearing with the investigating judge, as confirmed by an acknowledgment of receipt, but had failed to attend it. According to the higher court, the defence had been aware of the notice of the possibility to participate in the questioning of witnesses during the investigation but had consciously disregarded it. Hence, it had accepted the risk that the witnesses would not be available for questioning at the trial. Moreover, the higher court considered that the applicant had failed to comply with paragraph 2 of section 371 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see paragraph 39 below) as he had not substantiated in what way his inability to question the two witnesses at the trial had undermined the legality of the judgment.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 24 August 2012. The court confirmed that the first-instance court had correctly applied section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Act by reading out the testimony given by I.B. and Še.A. during the investigation as the witnesses, who were foreigners, had been duly summoned to appear before the court but had refused to attend. The Supreme Court further found that section 178(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provided that the investigating judge should have sent the request to attend the questioning directly to the defendants as well as to counsel. However, according to the Supreme Court, the applicant had failed to explain how that error on the part of the investigating judge had affected the legality of the impugned judgment. In the Supreme Court’s opinion, the error could only have affected the legality of the judgment if the first-instance court had relied on the testimony of I.B. and Še.A. to a decisive extent, which, however, had not been alleged in the case.

The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court dismissed the complaint on 24 December 2012, pursuant to section 55b of the Constitutional Court Act (see paragraph 40 below).


CASE OF RAMANAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA (No. 2)

No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Kaišiadorys.

The applicant worked as a lawyer in his own private practice.

On 28 January 2011 V.Š., a convicted prisoner, provided a statement to the Special Investigation Service (Specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba, hereinafter “the STT”) and stated the following. He had heard from other inmates that the deputy head of Pravieniškės Correctional Facility, L.D., took bribes to transfer inmates to units with lighter security and that L.D. had mentioned to V.Š. that it was possible to be released on probation for money. V.Š. was questioned by the STT and stated that in December 2010 L.D. had asked him to his office and enquired whether he wanted to be released early. L.D. had indicated that he had a friend who could help V.Š. obtain release on probation and promised to organise a meeting with him. V.Š. was asked again that month by L.D. to go to the latter’s office, where he met the applicant (see paragraph 7 below). V.Š. asked the applicant what he should do in order to obtain release on probation. The applicant stated that V.Š. would first have to be transferred to a unit with lighter security. V.Š. asked the applicant how much it would cost him and the applicant replied that Kaišiadorys [District Court] would cost him 7,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 2,027 euros (EUR)). After that the applicant indicated several judges that would agree to release V.Š. on probation. The applicant also stated that the cost for the same thing in the Kaunas Regional Court would be approximately LTL 10,000 (approximately EUR 2,896) but that that was not the final amount. The applicant also mentioned that V.Š. would have to pay LTL 1,000 (approximately EUR 290) for the transfer to a unit with lower security. After that conversation V.Š. started recording his discussions with L.D. and the applicant using a voice recorder watch which he said he had obtained from other inmates in exchange for cigarettes. Figures mentioned during the other meetings were LTL 2,000 (approximately EUR 579) for the transfer to another unit and LTL 12,000 (approximately EUR 3,475) for the judges at the Kaunas Regional Court as that amount could be more easily divided in three than LTL 10,000. V.Š. stated that no agreement on legal services had been concluded with the applicant. V.Š. then contacted an acquaintance, G.T., a former police officer who promised to contact the authorities.

The transcript of the conversation recorded between V.Š. and the applicant on 26 January 2011 showed that V.Š. had around LTL 35,000 (approximately EUR 10,137). The conversation went as follows:

“The applicant: ‘ ...You understand that the intermediary who will go will also need some, and..’

The applicant: ‘You know, salaries there are [LTL] 7,000, so you know...’

The applicant: ‘As with [D], when he brought, looked, he went there with those pennies, [they] said no, and he did not have any more...’

V.Š.: ‘Listen, I will be honest, for example I said, the deputy head asked me, asked. I told him that I will have ten, ten euros, so to say thirty five litai.’

The applicant: ‘... With that, we can easily talk about Kaunas.’

The applicant: ‘I believe you. I think that it will go through with such an amount of money.’”

The applicant told V.Š. that that amount might not actually be necessary. V.Š. then told the applicant that G.T. would contact him and give him LTL 2,000 (EUR 579). The applicant also told V.Š. that he had won a case against Lithuania at the Court and that he had not accepted a bribe in that case. The conversation went as follows:

“The applicant: ‘I have already been burnt and only got things straight in Strasbourg. I have won [in] the Strasbourg Court against Lithuania. I previously worked as a prosecutor.’

V.Š.: ‘The deputy did not tell me anything.’

The applicant: ‘I could go back to being a prosecutor. I have won a case against Lithuania in Strasbourg.’

V.Š.: ‘I will ... shake your hand. I can say ... that this seems unreal to me.’

The applicant: ‘... The prosecutor with a bribe... Strasbourg proved that it was a provocation. I proved it in Strasbourg. The proceedings [there] took eight years.’

The applicant: ‘It was nothing to do with a bribe .... I ... bought an apartment, I asked someone to give me a loan... He ... was in prison later. He was released... and became a snitch.’

V.Š.: ‘A friend’.

The applicant: ‘... He used to sleep at my mother’s place... I don’t know where he disappeared to. He will not die a natural death. I was not the only one he set up. Two judges in Kaunas as well.’

The applicant: ‘And I won a case in Strasbourg later. The Supreme Court rehabilitated me.’

V.Š.: ‘Yes.’

The applicant: ‘The Grand Chamber of seventeen judges, the plenary session for criminal cases.’

The applicant: ‘So look. When will that person come? So that I know what ...’

V.Š.: ‘So I can call you and simply say one word. Tomorrow, the day after tomorrow.’”

The applicant asked V.Š. to make sure that G.T. did not tell anyone about the agreement and V.Š. assured him that G.T. would not ask any questions.

On 31 January the STT asked a prosecutor to apply to a pre-trial judge for authorisation for G.T. and V.Š. to offer and give a bribe to L.D. and the applicant, in accordance with the provisions of domestic law. The prosecutor also sought permission to make video and/or voice-recordings, to take pictures and to allow three officers to monitor L.D.’s and the applicant’s telephone conversations. The prosecutor also asked the Vilnius City Second District Court on the STT’s behalf to authorise covert surveillance of the applicant and L.D. for two months. The STT additionally informed the prosecutor that a pre-trial investigation had been opened against L.D. and the applicant.

On the same day the Vilnius City Second District Court authorised taps on the telephones of L.D., V.Š., G.T. and the applicant and allowed G.T. and V.Š. to perform actions which imitated criminal conduct for two months, until 31 March 2011. V.Š. was allowed to use various types of telecommunications and electronic network measures.

On 31 January 2011 V.Š. was transferred to a unit with lighter security, based on good behaviour and active participation in the commemoration of the Day of the Defenders of Freedom.

On 31 January 2011 G.T. was questioned by the STT. He stated that he had visited V.Š. earlier in January 2011 and that the latter had asked him whether he could give LTL 2,000 to someone. G.T. had agreed.

On 1 February 2011 V.Š. and G.T. signed documents stating that they were not allowed to incite someone to commit an offence.

On the same day the applicant visited V.Š. and they talked about the situation of V.Š.

Later that day G.T. called the applicant and agreed to meet him the following day. After the meeting G.T. left LTL 2,000, given to him by the STT officers, in the side pocket of the applicant’s car.

On 3 February 2011 V.Š. called the applicant and asked how matters were proceeding. The applicant said that he would call back, but later asked to call the following Tuesday. On 10 February 2011 V.Š. called the applicant and said that they would be in touch; he also asked if the applicant would pay him a visit and the applicant said that he would come at some point in the future. On 14 February 2014 V.Š. called the applicant and said that he had received a character reference from the psychologist and the applicant stated that he would be in touch. V.Š. then asked the applicant whether he should call him and the applicant said that he could call when the documents for his transfer to a unit with lighter security were ready. On 19 February 2011 V.Š. called the applicant and informed him that the documents for the court had already been prepared. The applicant stated that he would be in touch and would come to visit V.Š. because they could not talk on the telephone. The applicant said that V.Š. could call him the following Wednesday or Thursday but then decided that Wednesday would be the best day. On 1-3 March 2011 V.Š. called L.D. and complained that he could not reach the applicant and asked for help in finding him. On 3 March 2011 L.D. called a certain A. and asked him where the applicant was. A. told him that it was not the first time that the applicant had disappeared.

On 7 March 2011 L.D. called the applicant and said that people were looking for him. The applicant said that V.Š.’s case was still in progress. L.D. asked the applicant to come and meet V.Š. and the applicant said that he had understood. V.Š. then called the applicant, who said he was going to visit him in a few hours and that they would talk in person. V.Š. again called the applicant later that day and asked whether he should bring the medical certificate to the meeting and the applicant said that he was already in the correctional facility. During the visit they discussed the fact that V.Š.’s case had not yet been transferred to court. V.Š. asked whether the applicant still had the necessary access [in the Kaunas Regional Court]. The applicant confirmed that he did, that the person concerned was coming back from Austria the following Monday and that without that person the matter could not be settled there. The applicant asked whether V.Š. wanted him to participate in a hearing before the court of first instance and V.Š. said yes. Then they talked about someone else’s situation and the applicant said that he knew the prosecutor and had bought him. The applicant further said that not every prosecutor could be bought but there were two he could buy. V.Š. said that he had LTL 30,000 (approximately EUR 8,689) and it did not matter for what [court] he had to pay. The applicant then asked V.Š. to speak quieter. He also asked V.Š. to call him from time to time. V.Š. asked whether he would have to pay something before the hearing in the Kaišiadorys District Court and the applicant said he would not have to give much because the chances were fifty-fifty. The applicant also stated that the rest of the money would be held in reserve for Kaunas [Regional Court] and he would take LTL 1,000 for Kaišiadorys [District Court]. Later in the same conversation he mentioned LTL 1,500 (approximately EUR 434). The applicant asked V.Š. to get in touch with his contact person, who was to call and meet the applicant in the evening. After the applicant had left the correctional facility V.Š. called him and told him that the papers had been sent to the court on the twenty-third. The applicant asked V.Š. to call him in an hour. When V.Š. called, the applicant told him that the hearing would take place on 23 March and that the applicant would participate in it; he also asked to call him in the evening.

On 9 March 2011 V.Š. called the applicant, who said that he would write him a message. On 14 March 2011 V.Š. called the applicant and they again discussed V.Š.’s situation. On 17 March 2011 V.Š. called the applicant and the applicant said that they would keep in touch after the following Sunday, and V.Š. was asked to call on Monday after lunch. On 18 March 2011 V.Š. called the applicant, who said that he would not participate in the hearing at the court of first instance regarding V.Š.’s release on probation and that if something happened he would inform V.Š. On 21 March 2011 V.Š. called the applicant, who confirmed his intention as regards the court of first instance because he did not expect anything good to come out of it. However, he said he would try to talk to someone and V.Š. said he would not forget his debt to the applicant. On 23 March 2011 V.Š. called the applicant and informed him that the Kaišiadorys District Court had decided not to release him on probation. The applicant then said that he would visit V.Š. so he could sign an appeal. On 23 March 2011 V.Š. called L.D. and asked him to ask the applicant about his chances to be released on probation. L.D. called the applicant the same day and asked how matters were proceeding with their client. The applicant said that he would come on Friday and that they would talk then. On 25 March 2011 the applicant visited V.Š., who signed some blank pieces of paper, on which the applicant said he would later write an appeal. V.Š. asked whether they would be covered by the amount they had discussed before. The applicant said that he would see, that he had talked with the men in question and asked them to do everything and that they would receive some money. V.Š. then told the applicant that his contact person would come the following Monday. After that, they discussed amounts and the applicant told V.Š. that the entire sum discussed would be necessary. V.Š. asked whether they were talking about thirty [thousand] and whether that amount included the applicant’s share and the applicant said it did. The applicant also said that before that amount would have guaranteed his release on probation one hundred percent but that now there was some trouble. The applicant then told V.Š. to call his contact person and ask him to meet the applicant on Monday. V.Š. asked whether his person (G.T.) should bring thirty (thousand) and the applicant confirmed that he should.

On 29 March 2011 the applicant and G.T. met in the applicant’s car, where LTL 30,000 was given to the applicant so that he could secure V.Š.’s release on probation. The applicant was arrested by STT officers immediately afterwards and the money was found in the side door pocket of the applicant’s car.

V.Š. was questioned additionally on 30 March 2011. He stated that L.D. had talked of the applicant as a reliable person who had access to prosecutors and judges. V.Š. also showed that L.D. had been the first one to start a conversation about the possibility of V.Š. being released on probation and that L.D. had told him several times before that “serious men pay money and are released and do not sit in prison” (rimti vyrai moka pinigus ir eina į laisvę, o ne sėdi kalėjime).

On 8 April 2011 the Kaunas Regional Court dismissed V.Š.’s appeal and upheld the first-instance decision not to release him on probation.

On 9 August 2011 a bill of indictment was drawn up against L.D. and the applicant. The applicant was accused of promising to influence L.D. and the judges at the Kaišiadorys District Court and the Kaunas Regional Court with a bribe so that V.Š. would be released on probation. He was also accused of taking a bribe of LTL 2,000 and LTL 30,000 respectively on two occasions.

On 31 August 2011 the Court of Appeal examined an application by the prosecutor to transfer the criminal case from the Kaišiadorys District Court. The Court of Appeal held that the applicant had stated that he could influence two judges in Kaišiadorys and thus decided to transfer the case to the Kėdainiai District Court so that the proceedings would be fair.

On 19 October 2011 the Vilnius City Third District Court approved an application by V.Š. to be released on probation. The court held that at that time V.Š. was serving his sentence in Vilnius Correctional Facility, where he had taken part in the social rehabilitation, legal and social education programmes and had provided information that he would be employed on release.

By a judgment of 18 July 2012 the Kėdainiai District Court found the applicant guilty of bribing an intermediary and sentenced him to sixty days in prison. The court found it established that G.T. had given the applicant LTL 2,000 and LTL 30,000 respectively during their meetings on 2 February and 29 March 2011 in return for a promise that the applicant would help in the proceedings for V.Š.’s release on probation. The applicant pleaded not guilty and stated that an act of provocation had been organised against him. He also stated that the money he had received was remuneration for his services as V.Š.’s lawyer. The applicant said that although no agreement on the provision of legal assistance had been concluded, he had intended to conclude one after the proceedings for V.Š.’s release on probation. The applicant refused to provide comments on the recordings and stated that his conversations with V.Š. were irrelevant because he had only wanted to show that he was working on his case. Those conversations had not been of any consequence as he had not been able to influence L.D. or the judges at Kaišiadorys District Court and Kaunas Regional Court (Pokalbių telefonu ir įrašu su V.[Š.] nekomentuoja, paaiškindamas, kad visi jo pokalbiai su V.[Š.] buvo dėl akių, kadangi kažką kalbėti su V.[Š.] reikėjo, tad nieko nereiškiančiais pokalbiais jis tik siekė parodyti, kad dirba, tačiau tuo jis nesiekė sukelti jokių pasekmių, kadangi negalėjo paveikti nei L.[D.], nei Kaišiadorių apylinkės ar Kauno apygardos teismo teisėjų). G.T. stated that he had known V.Š. since 2000 and that V.Š. had called him and asked for help. When G.T. had gone to Pravieniškės Correctional Facility, V.Š. had told him that the applicant required money and that V.Š. doubted that the money would be used in the proper way.

The court’s conclusions were based on the evidence given by V.Š., G.T., L.D. and other employees of Pravieniškės Correctional Facility. It also addressed the secret recordings of the applicant’s conversations, including those recorded prior to the authorisation for actions imitating criminal conduct. The court held that the transcripts of the conversations between the applicant and V.Š. showed that the applicant had been the first to indicate the amounts of money to be paid. The applicant’s statement that he had been going to conclude an agreement on legal services after he had taken LTL 30,000 were refuted by his conversation with G.T., where the applicant had stated that in case of failure he would keep 20% of the money and return the rest. The video-recordings showed that the applicant had not counted the money and that he had indicated to G.T. to put it in the side pocket of the car door. That allowed the court to draw the conclusion that the applicant realised that the money was remuneration for his criminal activity. The court further held that V.Š.’s testimony, voice and videorecordings showed that the applicant had not been incited to take a bribe and that the criminal conduct simulation model had been applied within the limits prescribed by the court (see paragraph 12 above). By the same judgment the Kėdainiai District Court found L.D. guilty of abuse of office and forgery, which had allowed V.Š. to be transferred to a unit with lighter security (see paragraph 10 above). It ordered L.D. to pay a fine of LTL 12,480 (approximately EUR 3,614). L.D. pleaded guilty, but stated that V.Š. had named the applicant as a lawyer that could help him obtain release on probation. The court decided to return the recorder watch to V.Š.

The applicant and L.D. lodged an appeal. The applicant argued that the provisions of domestic law had been applied incorrectly, that V.Š. and G.T. used undue pressure, and that V.Š. had used unauthorised equipment, the recorder watch, which he had not been allowed to have in prison. The applicant asked the appellate court to question V.Š. and ask him how he had acquired such a watch in a correctional facility. The applicant also stated that L.D. had overseen matters relating to V.Š.’s transfer to a unit with lighter security and that there was no evidence that he had tried to bribe L.D. The applicant also stated that he had never named any specific person in the courts whom he would have bribed because he had not intended to perform such an act. He had only talked to V.Š. about the outcome of the proceedings for release on probation because V.Š. had called him constantly.

On 23 October 2012 the Court of Appeal approved an application by the prosecutor to transfer the case to Panevėžys Regional Court from Kaunas Regional Court for examination on appeal in order to have a fair trial.

The Panevėžys Regional Court held an oral hearing where several witnesses, including V.Š., had been questioned. On 13 June 2013 the Panevėžys Regional Court held that V.Š. had purchased the watch for his personal use and that the provisions of domestic law did not directly prohibit the use of such equipment in prison. The court also held that the initial contact between V.Š. and the applicant had been arranged by L.D., that V.Š. had not known the applicant beforehand and had not had any motive to incite him to commit a crime. The court also found that no agreement on the provision of legal services had been concluded between the applicant and V.Š. and that the applicant’s argument that he had intended to conclude one later had been dismissed as an attempt to improve his situation. On the basis of the audio-recordings, the court also observed that the applicant had been the first to say that he could settle the matter for money. The court also found that there had been no incitement and that the authorities had not put any active pressure on the applicant to commit an offence. On the contrary, the applicant had incited V.Š. to give him an amount that would be sufficient for himself, an intermediary and three court judges. The court also held that at the time the offence had been committed, Article 226 § 1 of the Criminal Code provided for two alternative sentences for bribery of an intermediary: arrest or imprisonment for up to three years. On 5 July 2011 the Criminal Code had been amended and the applicant’s offence had then satisfied the requirements of Article 226 § 2 of the Criminal Code, which provided for various sentences: a fine, arrest or imprisonment for up to five years. As the provision in force provided for a more lenient sentence, the court decided to impose a fine of LTL 65,000 (approximately EUR 18,825). The court dismissed L.D.’s appeal by the same judgment.

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. He again argued that he had been incited to commit an offence, that V.Š., as a convicted prisoner, was not allowed to have recording equipment, that he had been provided with that equipment by the STT, and that the transcripts of the recordings should not have been used as evidence against him in the case. The applicant also alleged that the LTL 2,000 had been remuneration for his legal services and that he had not actually taken the LTL 30,000 from G.T., who had simply left the money in his car. The applicant further complained that the court of first instance had not even assessed whether the evidence had been lawfully collected. The appellate court, in turn, had approved evidence that had been gathered unlawfully and had misinterpreted domestic law. The applicant also argued that V.Š.’s testimony had contradicted itself: it was not clear who had informed the STT about the alleged crime.

On 28 January 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The court held that the pre-trial investigation had been opened on 28 January 2011 upon the request of V.Š. Together with his testimony, V.Š. had given the authorities his voice-recording watch, where he had recorded his conversations with L.D. and the applicant. The court held that convicted prisoners who used voice recorders breached internal prison regulations, but that did not mean that officers who carried out a pretrial investigation and obtained information from such a voice recorder acted unlawfully. The court also held that the finding of the applicant’s guilt had not been based solely on the evidence obtained from V.Š.’s watch. The court observed that L.D. had suggested the applicant as a lawyer because he knew the prosecutors and judges dealing with V.Š.’s case, while L.D. had not incited the applicant to take bribes. By the same judgment the Supreme Court left an appeal on points of law by L.D. unexamined because therein he had raised arguments that had not been raised before the appellate court.

On 19 December 2014 the Supreme Court examined an application by the applicant to reopen the proceedings. It decided not to do so, but reduced the fine to LTL 13,000 (approximately EUR 3,765).