Published on 25 April 2022
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 14139/21
Šarūnas NARBUTAS
against Lithuania
lodged on 15 February 2021
communicated on 6 April 2022
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Šarūnas Narbutas, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1988 and lives in Vilnius. He is represented before the Court by Ms E. Matulionytė, a lawyer practising in Vilnius.
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant has been suspected of trading in influence – it has been alleged that in March 2020 he organised the purchase of a large number of Covid-19 testing kits by the Lithuanian Government, acting as an intermediary between the government and a foreign pharmaceutical company, from which he received a profit of 303,360 euros (EUR). At the time of the lodging of the present application, the pre-trial investigation was still pending.
4. On 21 July 2020 the Special Investigation Service (SIS) arrested the applicant and searched his home. He was detained from 8.01 a.m. on 21 July 2020 to 5.15 p.m. on 22 July 2020. He complained to the prosecutors and the courts that his detention had been contrary to the law and that it had been based on abstract and stereotyped reasons, but his complaints were dismissed.
5. On 22 July 2020, at the prosecutor’s request, the court placed the applicant under house arrest for one month: he was ordered to stay at home from 10.00 p.m. to 6.00 a.m., banned from contacting several individuals and banned from visiting the Ministry of Health or any establishments subordinate to it. On 29 July 2020 the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision, submitting, inter alia, that he had an oncological illness and needed constant medical supervision, but he had been banned from going to the hospital, since all public hospitals were subordinate to the Ministry of Health. On 18 August 2020 a higher court amended the decision and allowed the applicant to go to hospitals for treatment purposes. The following day the prosecutor released him from house arrest.
6. On 21 July 2020 the prosecutor adopted a decision to seize the applicant’s property, namely, his bank accounts and his car, for six months. He was banned from using any money in his accounts. The total value of the seized property was estimated to be EUR 350,000. On 30 August 2020 the applicant lodged a complaint against that decision, arguing that the seizure had been disproportionate because the value of the seized property exceeded the profit which he had received from the allegedly criminal activity. He also submitted that the prohibition on him using any of the money in his bank accounts precluded him from meeting his basic needs, such as buying food and medication, paying rent, taxes and social security payments, or hiring a lawyer to defend him in the criminal proceedings. He submitted that meeting those needs required approximately EUR 6,650 per month. On 10 September 2020 the prosecutor partly amended the previous decision and allowed the applicant to use EUR 607 per month, corresponding to the minimum monthly salary. The applicant complained about the prosecutor’s decision to the courts, but they dismissed his complaints.
7. The proceedings against the applicant received widespread media attention. Many popular news websites reported on the suspicions against him, his arrest and subsequent house arrest, giving his full name, photograph, and mentioning the fact that he was the president of the Lithuanian Cancer Patient Coalition and an advisor to the former President of Lithuania. Some of the photographs and videos published online showed him handcuffed and being taken to the courtroom by police officers. An announcement was also made on the official website of the SIS, in Lithuanian and English, and interviews to journalists were given by a representative of the SIS and by the prosecutor in charge of the case, presenting the main details of the investigation and the suspicions against the applicant. The applicant himself also gave several interviews to newspapers and television broadcasts, in which he denied allegations of any wrongdoing.
8. Some prominent politicians made public comments regarding the applicant. In particular, on 6 August 2020 the President of Lithuania was quoted on a number of news websites with respect to two ongoing pre-trial investigations related to purchases of various Covid-19 protective measures – one of those investigations concerned the applicant, and the other one concerned allegations of corruption against the Deputy Minister of Health. The President stated:
“Both the case of Šarūnas Narbutas and [the case of the Deputy Minister] show that, at the time when Lithuania lacked means of protection and testing, when everybody was going out of their way – I understand that the situation was extraordinary – nonetheless there were many things, lots of murky water, where some people tried to catch fish. This cannot be tolerated; in popular terms it is called “marauding” (liaudyje tai vadinama marodieryste). We must fight against such phenomena.”
9. In addition, the Minister of Health stated in a number of interviews that, while he could not comment on whether the applicant’s actions may have constituted a criminal offence, during the negotiations the applicant had not disclosed to the Lithuanian authorities that he was paid for his services as an intermediary. The Prosecutor General’s Office also informed the media that, according to the information obtained during the investigation, the government officials who had participated in the negotiations leading to the purchase had not been aware of the fact that the applicant had “a financial interest” in the purchase.
10. On 5 August 2020 the applicant was granted access to a part of the investigation file. On 20 August 2020 an investigator of the SIS warned him that, in line with the Code of Criminal Procedure, the applicant was not allowed to disclose the data of the pre-trial investigation to any unauthorised persons. The applicant complained to the prosecutor and to the pre-trial investigation judge that such a warning precluded him from defending his reputation in public – he submitted that investigating officials and prominent politicians were constantly commenting on his case in the media, but he had been banned from doing the same, since it had not been made clear what exact information he was not allowed to disclose. His complaints were dismissed, inter alia, on the grounds that the said restriction was in his own interest.
COMPLAINTS
11. The applicant complains under Article 3 that he was precluded from receiving medical assistance; under Article 5 § 1 that his detention and house arrest were unlawful and lacked justification; under Article 5 § 3 that he was not brought promptly before a judge to determine the lawfulness of his detention; under Article 5 § 4 that the lawfulness of his detention was not properly examined by a court; under Article 6 § 1 that the courts’ decisions examining his complaints were insufficiently motivated and that the criminal proceedings against him have been unfair; under Article 6 § 2 that the public statements made by investigating officials and prominent politicians infringed on his right to be presumed innocent; under Article 6 § 3 that the seizure of his assets precluded him from hiring a lawyer of his choice; under Article 8 that the publicity surrounding the case breached his reputation and that the search of his home was unlawful; under Article 10 that he was banned from discussing the case in the media; and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the seizure of all his assets was unnecessary and disproportionate.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been precluded from accessing medical assistance? If so, did this amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
2. Did the applicant’s detention from 8.01 a.m. on 21 July 2020 to 5.15 p.m. on 22 July 2020 comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the detention ordered in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law (see Creangă v. Romania [GC], no. 29226/03, § 101, 23 February 2012) and was it necessary in the circumstances (see S., V. and A. v. Denmark [GC], nos. 35553/12 and 2 others, § 77, 22 October 2018)?
3. Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case, in view of the public statements made by investigating officers and prominent politicians about the allegations against the applicant (see Paulikas v. Lithuania, no. 57435/09, §§ 48-49, 24 January 2017, and the cases cited therein)?
4. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, including his reputation, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in view of the nature and scope of the information about the case which was made public by the authorities? The Court refers, in particular, to the disclosure of the applicant’s name and employment history and the publication of his photographs.
5. Has the applicant been precluded from discussing the proceedings against him in the media? The Government are asked to clarify what information the applicant is and is not allowed to disclose under domestic law.
6. If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, was the restriction on the applicant discussing the proceedings in the media in line with Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was that restriction necessary, in view of the nature and scope of the information about the case which was made public by the authorities and its wide coverage in the media (see, mutatis mutandis, Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 138, ECHR 2015, in fine)?
7. Did the seizure of the applicant’s assets strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of his fundamental rights, as required by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see Balsamo v. San Marino, nos. 20319/17 and 21414/17, § 88, 8 October 2019, and the cases cited therein)?
The parties are asked to inform the Court about the course of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and to submit copies of all relevant domestic decisions.