Published on 26 June 2023
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 53384/22
Genadij BORISOV
against Lithuania
lodged on 5 November 2022
communicated on 6 June 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the length of his criminal proceedings.
The applicant, accused of drug-trafficking, unauthorised possession of firearms, light health impairment and of leadership of an organised criminal group, was arrested on 17 April 2018. His detention was continually extended, on the basis of the authorities’ fear that, among others, the applicant might escape and/or commit new crimes.
The last decision to extend his pre-trial detention was taken on 1 June 2022, by final ruling of the Court of Appeal.
In 2019 part of the applicant’s criminal case was separated and transferred to the Kaunas Regional Court for examination on the merits, where it is pending. The other part of the criminal case was transferred to that court in the beginning of 2022, where it is also pending.
On 12 July 2022 the Kaunas Regional Court changed the remand measure and ordered the applicant’s release from detention on bail, together with electronic tagging. He was released from detention the following day.
Under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention the applicant complains that his pre- trial detention, which had lasted for four years and three months, had been excessively long and unjustified.
Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant further complains that his criminal case has not been examined within a reasonable time.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the length of the applicant’s detention on remand in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Balčiūnas v. Lithuania, no. 17095/02, §§ 77-80, 20 July 2010, and Lisovskij v. Lithuania, no. 36249/14, §§ 65-68, 2 May 2017)?
In this context, did the competent domestic authorities display “special diligence” in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant during the period of his detention on remand (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, §§ 152 and 153, ECHR 2000‑IV)?
2. Was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no. 31333/06, § 140, 10 September 2010)?
3. The parties are requested to inform the Court about any further developments regarding the applicant’s situation.