Communicated on 21 June 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 21218/12
Rita ČIVINSKAITĖ
against Lithuania
lodged on 2 April 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Ms Rita Čivinskaitė, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Skriaudžiai (Prienai Region).
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Background
3. In November 2008 D.K. submitted a complaint to the Kaunas City Police Department, alleging that his daughter, who was a minor, had been sexually abused by several individuals. The authorities opened a pre-trial investigation.
4. On 28 January 2009 the Chief Prosecutor of the Kaunas Regional Prosecutor’s Office entrusted the pre-trial investigation to G.R., a prosecutor from the Kaunas City District Prosecutor’s Office (hereinafter “the KCDPO”). The applicant, who worked as the Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the KCDPO, was instructed to supervise the investigation carried out by G.R.
5. During the investigation D.K. submitted various requests to the prosecutors, including a request to open a pre-trial investigation against his daughter’s mother, L.S., and a request to question J.F., whom he suspected of having sexually abused his daughter. Both those requests were dismissed.
6. In October 2009 L.S.’s sister and J.F. were fatally shot in Kaunas. D.K. was suspected of murdering them and national and international search warrants were issued.
2. Disciplinary proceedings against the applicant
7. On an unspecified date the Prosecutor General’s Office began an inspection of the actions of the KCDPO in the course of the pre-trial investigation into D.K.’s complaints. On 22 October 2009 the inspection concluded, inter alia, that the applicant had failed to supervise the investigation conducted by G.R., that she had not ensured that the essential investigative actions were carried out promptly, and that she had unlawfully allowed A.Ū., the suspect in the case, to have access to the investigation file.
8. In accordance with orders issued by the Prosecutor General on 30 October 2009 and 3 November 2009, the applicant was given a disciplinary penalty – she was demoted to the post of a prosecutor in the KCDPO.
3. Parliamentary inquiry
9. On 22 October 2009 the Parliament ordered the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs to examine whether the pre-trial investigation concerning D.K.’s complaints had been carried out diligently and in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.
10. The Committee held several interviews with the Prosecutor General and examined the conclusions of its inspection of the actions of the KCDPO (see paragraph 7 above).
11. On 21 January 2010 the Committee endorsed the conclusions of the Prosecutor General’s Office. It found, inter alia, that the police had failed to carry out the pre-trial investigation in a diligent, effective and professional manner, and that the KCDPO had failed to take measures to speed up the investigation and carry out all the essential investigative actions. The Committee recommended that the Prosecutor General’s Office “assess, in a principled manner, the actions of all the officers who had carried out the pre-trial investigation and supervised the prosecutors” (principingai įvertinti visų ikiteisminį tyrimą vykdžiusių, kontroliavusių ir prokurorams vadovavusių pareigūnų veiksmus).
4. Media coverage and statements of high-level politicians
12. The case concerning D.K.’s complaints and the subsequent murders attracted considerable attention from the public and from politicians. One of the largest national newspapers, Respublika, in its edition dated 7 October 2009 quoted a member of parliament who stated that “the deliberate inaction of the authorities may have driven [D.K.] to such a tragedy”. The publication also quoted the Chairperson of the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs, who stated that the pre-trial investigation concerning D.K.’s complaints had been carried out “rather dismissively and slowly” (skundo tyrimas buvo atliekamas gana atmestinai ir lėtai).
13. On 26 October 2009 one of the largest national news websites, D, published an article that included this statement from the President:
“D. Grybauskaitė: I expect harsher decisions concerning prosecutors
President Dalia Grybauskaitė admits that she was expecting harsher decisions concerning the prosecutors implicated in relation to the professional misconduct identified in the course of the investigation of the paedophilia case involving D.K.’s daughter. When asked how she viewed the proposal to dismiss one prosecutor and to demote others, the Head of State said that she had expected a different decision. “Tomorrow, I think, perhaps the decisions will be different ... As for the Kaunas prosecutors, I expect slightly different – harsher – decisions”, D. Grybauskaitė told journalists ...
On Friday, in connection with the professional misconduct identified in the course of the investigation of the paedophilia case involving D.K.’s daughter, it was proposed that the Prosecutor General should dismiss prosecutor G.R. of the KCDPO and impose more lenient penalties on the other four Kaunas prosecutors ... It is proposed that [the applicant], the Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the KCDPO, be demoted ...”
14. On 12 November 2009 one of the largest national newspapers, Lietuvos rytas, published an article entitled “Sluggish investigators are partly responsible for the murders”. It reported on the meeting of the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Affairs, which had concluded that the pre-trial investigation concerning D.K.’s complaints had not been carried out diligently (see paragraphs 9-11 above). The publication quoted the Chairperson of the Committee, who reiterated that the Prosecutor General should “assess, in a principled manner, the actions of the officers at all levels – investigators and supervisors alike”.
15. On an unspecified date the following statement was published on the President’s official website:
“The actions of the President of the Republic of Lithuania in response to the paedophilia scandal
The President is demanding that the officers who protracted the case concerning possible sexual abuse of a minor be held personally liable ...
The President has stated that it is evident that the investigation concerning the possible sexual abuse of a minor was protracted. The officers who failed to act diligently must be immediately identified and their personal liability demanded.
According to the President, not a single officer or institution bearing any responsibility for the unacceptable protraction of the investigation will be able to avoid liability. The Prosecutor General must immediately identify those who protracted the investigation and the reasons behind the delay, and must ensure an efficient future investigation into the events in Kaunas in order to uncover the truth as soon as possible ...”
16. On 2 March 2010 the news website B published an article entitled “Paedophilia case: suspect had access to the investigation file” which stated:
“According to the LNK news service, the demoted then-Deputy Chief Prosecutor of the KCDPO, [the applicant], allowed A.Ū., who was suspected of sexually abusing the minor, to have access to the pre-trial investigation file ... [The Head of the Human Resources Division of the Prosecutor General’s Office] stated that this action had been one of the reasons for [the applicant’s] demotion.
On Tuesday in a closed hearing the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court started examining [the applicant’s] appeal against her demotion. [The applicant], who was demoted last October by the former Prosecutor General, is seeking to have the disciplinary penalty revoked in court.”
5. Court proceedings concerning the applicant’s demotion
17. On 20 November 2009 the applicant submitted a complaint to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court appealing against the disciplinary penalty. She argued that she had acted in accordance with all the legal provisions regulating the duties of a prosecutor, and that the disciplinary penalty had been disproportionately harsh. On 15 May 2010 the applicant submitted a revised complaint in which she also argued that the Prosecutor General’s decision to demote her had not been based on her performance but that it had been influenced by public statements made by politicians and by the media coverage of the case.
18. On 7 June 2010 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint and upheld the findings of the inspection conducted by the Prosecutor General’s Office (see paragraph 7 above).
19. On 18 June 2010 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. Amongst other things, she argued that the lower court had not commented on her complaint concerning the political interference in the case and the negative media coverage.
20. On 10 October 2011 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the lower court in its entirety. It did not comment on the applicant’s complaint concerning the political interference and the media coverage.
COMPLAINT
21. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that she did not receive a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal because of the political and media involvement in the case. She also complains, in substance, under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that high-level politicians publicly implied that she had committed disciplinary violations, before her case was decided by courts.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? The Court in particular refers to the parliamentary inquiry and the statements of the President and other politicians concerning the liability of prosecutors in charge of D.K.’s case, as well as the related media coverage (see, mutatis mutandis, Kinský v. the Czech Republic, no. 42856/06, §§ 86-99, 9 February 2012, and the cases cited therein).
2. In particular, were the parliamentary inquiry and the statements of public officials in line with the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Butkevičius v. Lithuania, no. 48297/99, § 50, ECHR 2002‑II (extracts))?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy