SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MANEIKIS v. LITHUANIA
(Application no. 21987/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
18 January 2011
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Maneikis v. Lithuania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Nona Tsotsoria, President,
Danutė Jočienė,
Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 December 2010,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 21987/07) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Gytis Maneikis
(“the applicant”), on 12 May 2007.
2. The applicant was represented by V. Falkauskas, a lawyer practising in Joniškis. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Elvyra Baltutytė.
3. On 19 January 2009 the President of the Second Section decided to communicate the application to the Government. In accordance with Protocol No. 14, the application was assigned to a Committee of three Judges. The Government objected to the examination of the application by a Committee. After having considered the Government's objection, the Court rejected it.
THE FACTS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Mažeikiai.
5. On 17 January 1996 the Lithuanian authorities decided to charge the applicant with the embezzlement of 1,000,000 Lithuanian litas (LTL), which his company had given him to purchase certain equipment. Given that prior to the latter date the applicant had fled Lithuania, the prosecutors ordered a search for him. It was also decided that, once apprehended, the applicant would be placed in detention.
6. On 16 May 1996 the authorities apprehended the applicant in Latvia, brought him to Lithuania and placed him in detention. The same day the applicant was informed about the charges against him.
7. On 15 August 1996 the applicant was released from detention and placed under house arrest. When questioned before a pre-trial judge, the applicant asserted that, whilst staying in Latvia, he had no information about his search. The applicant admitted that his wife had visited him in Riga a couple of times; however, she had never told him about pending criminal charges against him.
The applicant remained under house arrest until 19 April 2006.
8. Later on in 1996 the prosecution charged the applicant with having fraudulently reported a crime and with forgery of an official document.
9. On 22 June 1998 the pre-trial investigation was concluded and the case was transferred to the Mažeikiai District Court.
10. On 2 December 2002, 3 and 22 April 2003 the hearing of the case was postponed, since some of the applicant's co-accused failed to appear in court.
11. On 2 September 2004 the Mažeikiai District Court dismissed as time-barred the charges against the applicant for forgery of documents and fraudulent reporting of a crime.
12. The same day the Mažeikiai District Court convicted the applicant and six of his co-accused of having acted in an organised group of persons who fraudulently acquired property of a significant value. The applicant was sentenced to two years and six months of deprivation of liberty.
13. The applicant appealed.
14. On 25 November 2004, 12 September 2005 and 9 February 2006 the examination of the case on appeal was postponed because the lawyers for the applicant and the co-accused failed to appear in court.
15. On 19 April 2006 the Šiauliai Regional Court amended the lower court's judgment. It convicted the applicant of assisting in fraudulently acquiring property of a significant value, and reduced the sentence imposed by one year.
16. On 14 November 2006 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
17. The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
18. The Government contended that the length of the proceedings was reasonable.
A. Admissibility
19. The Government submitted that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies by claiming redress for the length of the criminal proceedings. In the alternative, they argued that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded.
20. The applicant contested the Government's submissions.
21. Having had regard to the Government's arguments and the materials they submitted, the Court finds that the Government have not presented any convincing reasons which would require the Court to depart from its established case-law to the effect that the applicant had not had an effective domestic remedy at his disposal which he had failed to exhaust before lodging his application with the Court (see Norkūnas v. Lithuania,
no. 302/05, §§ 29-30, 20 January 2009, and Šulcas v. Lithuania,
no. 35624/04, §§ 60 and 62, 5 January 2010). It follows that the Government's objection as to non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies must be dismissed.
22. The Court also considers that this complaint is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
23. The period to be taken into account began on 16 May 1996, when the applicant was apprehended in Latvia, brought to Lithuania and charged with embezzlement. The criminal proceedings ended with the decision of the Supreme Court of 14 November 2006. They thus lasted some ten years and six months for three levels of jurisdiction.
24. The Court will assess the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having regard to the criteria laid down in its case-law, in particular the complexity of the case and the conduct of the applicant and of the relevant authorities. On the latter point, what is at stake for the applicant has also to be taken into account (see, among many other authorities, Portington v. Greece, 23 September 1998, § 21, Reports 1998‑VI).
25. The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present case
(see Norkūnas, cited above, §§ 39-41).
26. Applying these principles to the instant case, the Court considers that the proceedings may be deemed complex, owing, inter alia, to the number of co-accused and the nature of the offences – financial impropriety by the applicant. Furthermore, having examined the materials presented to it, the Court notes that there were some delays not entirely imputable to the authorities, given the failure of some of the co-accused or their lawyers, as well as the lawyer of the applicant, to attend court hearings
(see paragraphs 10 and 14 above).
27. As to the conduct of the authorities, the Court nonetheless notes that it took the Mažeikiai District Court six years to decide the case on first instance (see paragraphs 9 and 12 above). The Court also has regard to the fact that whilst criminal proceedings were pending, the applicant had been under house arrest for nearly ten years (see paragraph 7 above).
28. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the total length of the impugned criminal proceedings exceeded the “reasonable time” requirement. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
29. Invoking Articles 5 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that his extradition to Lithuania and subsequent detention on remand were unlawful and that had no effective remedy to challenge their validity.
30. In this connection the Court notes that the applicant was released from detention on remand on 15 August 1996. Subsequently, he remained under house arrest until 19 April 2006. However, the applicant submitted these complaints to the Court only on 12 May 2007. In the light of above, the Court finds that these complaints have not been lodged within six months of the final effective measure or decision, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. They must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
31. Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant further complained that the Lithuanian courts were unfair, had incorrectly evaluated the evidence, misinterpreted domestic law and that, as a result, he had been deprived of an effective remedy to defend his rights.
32. The Court has examined the remainder of the above complaints as submitted by the applicant. However, having regard to all the material in its possession, it finds that within the framework of the criminal proceedings the applicant had full opportunity to challenge evidence against him and to present all necessary arguments in defence of his interests himself or through counsel, and that the judicial authorities gave them due consideration. His case was examined at three levels of jurisdiction. The decisions of the domestic courts do not appear unreasonable or arbitrary. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
33. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
34. The applicant claimed 20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of
non-pecuniary damage.
35. The Government contested the claim.
36. The Court considers that the applicant has suffered certain
non-pecuniary damage as a result of the excessive length of the criminal proceedings, which is not sufficiently compensated by the finding of a violation. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,400 under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
37. The applicant also claimed LTL 500 (approximately EUR 145) for the costs and expenses incurred before the Court.
38. The Government contested the claim.
39. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case-law, the Court considers that the sum claimed should be awarded in full.
C. Default interest
40. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaint concerning the excessive length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into Lithuanian litas at the rate applicable at the date of settlement:
(i) EUR 3,400 (three thousand four hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 145 (one hundred and forty five euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 January 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Françoise Elens-PassosNona Tsotsoria Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy