Information Note on the Court’s case-law 43
June 2002
Karalevičius v. Lithuania (dec.) - 53254/99
Decision 6.6.2002 [Section III]
Article 3
Inhuman treatment
Conditions of detention on remand: admissible
Article 5
Article 5-1
Lawful arrest or detention
Continued detention on remand without any legal basis: admissible
In 1994 criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant on suspicion of fraud. He fled from Lithuania but was arrested in Moscow and extradited to Lithuania on 30 December 1996. The following day the District Court ordered his detention on remand until 31 January 1997 on suspicion of destroying relevant documents. The court referred to the danger of his absconding or committing further offences. The court extended the detention on 24 January until 31 March, on 28 March until 31 May 1997 and on 30 May until 13 June 1997. On 6 August 1997 the applicant was committed for trial before the District Court, which ordered his continued detention without specifying any term. On 10 September 1998 the District Court convicted him, sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment and ordering him to pay damages. The Regional Court reduced the amount of the damages. On 29 June 1999, on the applicant’s appeal on points of law, the Supreme Court quashed the above decisions and remitted the case for reconsideration. On 30 July 1999 the District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand until 1 September 1999 on suspicion of having destroyed documents. The court referred to the danger of absconding. On 31 August 1999 his detention was prolonged until 15 November 1999. On 30 December 1999 the District Court extended the detention until judgment was issued on the case. In March 2000 the District Court convicted the applicant, reducing the sentence by one third by reason of a law of amnesty. He was considered to have already served this sentence, given the time he had spent on remand. The court ordered his release on bail, with house arrest, until the entry into force of the judgment. In May 2000 the Regional Court dismissed his appeal. On that date the conviction took effect and the bail constraints ceased. In October 2000 the Supreme Court examined the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It amended the decisions of the lower instances, reducing the sentence to three years’ imprisonment. The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention at the Šiauliai Remand Prison where he was kept from 2 January 1997 to 22 September 1999 and from 28 September 1999 until his release on 6 March 2000. He alleged that he was kept in cells of less than 20m² holding from 10 to 15 inmates, that there was an open toilet in each cell and that the cells had no proper ventilation. Prisoners had one hour per day to walk in the prison yard. He also complained about the poor hygiene. In addition, he claimed that a number of letters to the Convention organs were censored by the prison authorities and that letters from the Court were opened and read in his absence by the prison authorities.
Admissible under Article 3 concerning the applicant’s detention at the Šiauliai Remand Prison: As to the Government’s contention that the applicant failed to exhaust domestic remedies, in the Valašinas v. Lithuania decision the Court concluded that no domestic remedy was available to complain about prison conditions following conviction. Although in the present case the issue concerned the applicant’s detention on remand, the Government had not demonstrated that any adequate remedies existed, in theory or in practice, that would allow the Court to depart from its finding in the Valašinas decision.
Admissible under Article 5 § 1 as regards the lawfulness of the applicant’s detention from 13 June 1997 to 6 August 1997, from 29 June 1999 to 30 July 1999 and from 15 November 1999 to 30 December 1999
Inadmissible under Article 5 § 1 (i) as regards his detention from 30 December 1996 to 13 June 1997: the courts were competent to decide on the question of the applicant’s detention for the period in question by taking an appropriate decision and this period was covered by valid orders authorising the detention on remand. The applicant’s detention during this period was thus compatible with domestic law for the purposes of Article 5 § 1. There was no evidence that it was arbitrary, given that the applicant had been suspected of committing various offences and that he had absconded during the investigation: manifestly ill-founded.
(ii) as regards his detention from 6 August 1997 to 10 September 1998: a period of detention based on a court order declaring that the remand in custody must remain unchanged is “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1: manifestly ill-founded.
(iii) as regards his detention from 10 September 1998 to 29 June 1999: this period was based on the conviction of September 1998 whereby the first instance court imposed a five-year sentence. Despite the fact that until the date of the appeal decision the applicant was considered as a prisoner on remand under domestic law, he was for the purposes of the Article 5 § 1 (a) a person convicted by a competent court throughout the period in issue. The fact that the conviction was subsequently quashed by the Supreme Court did not in itself render the period of detention in question “unlawful”. The Court has consistently refused to uphold applications from persons convicted of criminal offences who complain that their convictions or sentences were found by appellate courts to have been based on errors of fact or law. In the present case, there was no evidence that the trial court which convicted and sentenced the applicant lacked competence in this respect or that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to confirm the sentence on appeal. In addition, the Supreme Court did not acquit the applicant when it quashed his conviction: manifestly ill-founded.
(iv) as regards his detention from 30 July 1999 to 15 November 1999 and from 30 December 1999 until his release on 6 March 2000: these periods were covered by valid court orders authorising the applicant’s detention on remand in custody: manifestly ill-founded.
Admissible under Article 8 (correspondence).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy