Communicated on 16 June 2015
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 36249/14
Genrik LISOVSKIJ
against Lithuania
lodged on 24 April 2014
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Genrik Lisovskij, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1987 and lives in Vilnius. He is represented before the Court by Ms G. Cimbolienė, a lawyer practising in Vilnius.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 15 December 2009 the applicant was arrested in Vilnius on suspicion of leading a criminal organisation armed with firearms (Article 249 § 2 of the Criminal Code) and possession of a large amount of narcotic and psychotropic substances with the intention to disseminate them (Article 260 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code).
On 16 December 2009 the First District Court of Vilnius authorised the applicant’s detention on remand for three months. The court noted that the applicant was suspected of having committed serious and very serious crimes which could lead to life imprisonment; that these crimes were organised and not spontaneous; and that the applicant was unemployed, not enrolled in an educational institution, not married and had no strong social ties. On these grounds the court concluded that detention was necessary to prevent the applicant from absconding, from attempting to interfere with the criminal investigation or from committing further crimes.
From March 2010 to July 2013 the courts renewed the applicant’s detention on remand every three months on essentially the same grounds, additionally finding that the applicant had links in foreign countries which might facilitate his absconding, that he had a previous conviction, even though it was no longer valid, and that he was also a suspect in another criminal case. In these proceedings the applicant argued that continued detention was unnecessary because he was of a young age, had no valid previous convictions, had a place of residence, lived with his parents and was taking care of his sick grandmother, but the courts dismissed his arguments. The courts also held that the case was complex and the investigation was ongoing, so the continued detention of the applicant was justified under the Convention.
On 11 September 2013 the Vilnius Regional Court refused to renew the applicant’s detention and instead ordered house arrest and confiscation of the applicant’s passport and driver’s licence. The court noted that the applicant had been detained for more than three years, so the initial grounds for detention – such as the possibility that he might abscond or commit further crimes – were no longer valid. The applicant was immediately released. The conditions of his house arrest consisted of a requirement to be at home from 22:00 to 8:00, a prohibition to visit public places (except for medical institutions and shops) and a prohibition to contact the other suspects in the criminal case. The applicant states that he complied with all these conditions and that soon after his release he found a job as a security guard.
However, on 24 September 2013 the Lithuanian Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the lower court and renewed the applicant’s detention. The last available decision concerning his detention was taken by the Lithuanian Court of Appeal on 15 April 2014 and confirmed the renewal of detention until 7 July 2014.
It appears from the documents submitted by the applicant that the criminal case against him has not yet been examined by the trial court.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand was excessive.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
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 Jėčius v. Lithuania, no. 34578/97, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2000‑IX; Stašaitis v. Lithuania, no. 47679/99, §§ 83-85, 21 March 2002; Balčiūnas v. Lithuania, no. 17095/02, §§ 77-80, 20 July 2010)
The parties are requested to inform the Court about any further developments regarding the applicant’s situation.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy