Published on 7 July 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 42597/23
Egidijus LAUŽIKAS
against Lithuania
lodged on 28 November 2023
communicated on 16 June 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the dismissal of a judge of the Supreme Court.
In 1999 the applicant was appointed to the Supreme Court by the Seimas (the Lithuanian Parliament). In 2018 the Prosecutor General opened a pre-trial investigation against several judges, including the applicant, concerning suspicions of abuse of office. With regard to the applicant, it was alleged that he had given informal advice to an acquaintance concerning pending cases in exchange for a remuneration. In February 2019 the President of the Republic of Lithuania suspended the applicant from his judicial duties while the criminal proceedings were pending. On unspecified dates the authorities carried out secret surveillance of his electronic communications.
In July 2019 the President requested the prosecutor to provide him with investigation material relevant for determining whether the applicant had discredited the office of judge. The President’s representatives were granted access to the investigation file. On 30 July 2019 the President passed a decree asking the Judicial Council, a body for self-government of judges, for advice as to whether the applicant should be removed from office. The Judicial Council held a hearing on 9 August 2019. Prior to the hearing, its members were granted access to the investigation file. Before and during the hearing, the applicant asked to be provided with the material on which the allegations against him were based. He was provided with the President’s decree and a three-page summary of the suspicions against him prepared by the prosecutor.
On 9 August 2019 the Judicial Council recommended to the President that the applicant be removed from office for having discredited the office of judge. On 16 August 2019 the President passed a decree requesting the Seimas to remove him from office. It appears that members of the Seimas were granted access to the investigation file. On 24 September 2019 the Seimas issued a decision removing the applicant from office.
The applicant challenged the above decisions before the Vilnius Regional Court. On 10 November 2020 the court granted his action in part. It quashed the Judicial Council’s recommendation, finding, inter alia, that the applicant had not been adequately informed of the reasons for his dismissal, that the Judicial Council had not assessed whether the use of data obtained through secret surveillance had been lawful, and that the allegations against the applicant had not been proved. The court also held that it did not have the competence to assess the lawfulness of the President’s decree and of the Seimas’ decision and referred that part of the case to the Constitutional Court.
On 15 April 2022 the Constitutional Court issued a ruling in which it held that the President’s decree and the Seimas’ decision complied with the Constitution, inter alia, because they had been based on the Judicial Council’s recommendation issued after giving the applicant an opportunity to present his arguments and after duly examining all the relevant facts.
Subsequently the Court of Appeal quashed the Vilnius Regional Court’s decision of 10 November 2020 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. On 9 January 2023 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action, finding, inter alia, that the procedure before the Judicial Council had provided him with sufficient procedural guarantees. On 18 April 2023 the Court of Appeal upheld that decision and on 28 July 2023 the Supreme Court refused to accept the applicant’s appeal on points of law for examination on the grounds that it did not raise any important legal issues.
At the time of the lodging of the present application (on 28 November 2023), the criminal proceedings against the applicant were pending before the first-instance court.
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings before the Judicial Council and the courts were not fair because he was not granted access to the material on which the allegations against him were based, was not given sufficient time to defend himself before the Judicial Council, and neither the Judicial Council nor the courts duly addressed his arguments.
He further complains under Article 8 of the Convention that his dismissal was not in accordance with the law – namely that basing his dismissal on classified pre-trial investigation material in the disciplinary proceedings was contrary to domestic law and that basing it on data obtained in criminal proceedings through secret surveillance was contrary to EU law (he refers to the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 7 September 2023 in case C-162/22).
Lastly, he complains under Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 that he did not have an effective remedy against his dismissal because of the limited remit of the courts of general jurisdiction – those courts could not themselves examine the decisions taken by the President and the Seimas and they were bound by the findings reached by the Constitutional Court in the ruling of 15 April 2022.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:
(a) Was he afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that did not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the authorities bringing the disciplinary proceedings against him (see Olujić v. Croatia, no. 22330/05, § 78, 5 February 2009)?
(b) Did he have the opportunity to have knowledge of, and comment on, all evidence adduced or observations filed in the disciplinary proceedings (see, mutatis mutandis, Juričić v. Croatia, no. 58222/09, §§ 73-75, 26 July 2011, and Adomaitis v. Lithuania, no. 14833/18, §§ 70-73, 18 January 2022)?
The Court refers, in particular, to the applicant’s submission that the allegations against him were based on the material of the pre-trial investigation to which he did not have full access and that access to that material was granted to members of the Judicial Council, representatives of the President and members of the Seimas.
(c) Did the domestic authorities and courts rely on evidence obtained unlawfully in terms of domestic law (see López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, §§ 150-52, 17 October 2019)?
2. Did the applicant’s dismissal affect his private life to a very significant degree, so as to make Article 8 of the Convention applicable (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 115-17, 25 September 2018)?
3. Without prejudice to the previous question and assuming that Article 8 of the Convention is applicable, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, on account of the fact that his dismissal was based on:
(a) material obtained during the pre-trial investigation which had not been declassified (see Adomaitis, cited above, §§ 47, 50 and 51);
(b) secret surveillance data which had been intercepted during the pre-trial investigation (see, mutatis mutandis, Eminağaoğlu v. Turkey, no. 76521/12, § 161, 9 March 2021, and Adomaitis, cited above, § 83)?
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8 concerning his dismissal, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Glas Nadezhda EOOD and Elenkov v. Bulgaria, no. 14134/02, §§ 65-71, 11 October 2007, and the cases cited therein)? In particular, was a complaint to the courts of general competence an effective remedy in the circumstances, in view of the following:
(a) the fact that the remit of the courts of general competence was limited to examining the recommendation issued by the Judicial Council and did not include the decisions taken by the President and the Seimas (see, mutatis mutandis, Bastys v. Lithuania, no. 80749/17, §§ 68-69 and 78, 4 February 2020, and Ancient Baltic religious association “Romuva” v. Lithuania, no. 48329/19, §§ 88-91, 8 June 2021);
(b) the findings made by the Constitutional Court in its ruling of 15 April 2022 with regard to the recommendation of the Judicial Council?