Communicated on 11 May 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 2052/10
Arūnas PUKELIS
against Lithuania
lodged on 29 December 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Arūnas Pukelis, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1968 and lives in Vilnius.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 2 June 2008 the applicant blocked the path of a car belonging to a person called R.M., and took R.M.’s hand and cheek and squeezed them, causing physical pain to R.M. He then spat on R.M.’s car and swore because R.M. had allegedly been driving too fast and had caused dust to fly up.
On 17 June 2008 the applicant was stopped by the police and asked to provide his driving licence and car documents. He only showed his passport and said that he did not carry other documents with him because he was very well known. He threatened the police officer by saying that if he was stopped again he would set the officer’s home on fire. On 2 June 2009 the applicant was acquitted of charges relating to the episode with R.M. He was found guilty of charges relating to the episode with the police officer and was given a fine of 7,800 Lithuanian litai (LTL) (approximately 2,259 euros (EUR)).
On 2 June 2008, in accordance with the provisions of the Law on the Prevention of Organised Crime, the applicant was given an official warning (oficialus perspėjimas) that the police had information that the applicant’s actions were restricting the rights and freedoms of others. He was also informed that if he supported the activities of a criminal association in any way or form, or carried out any other illegal activities, then administrative or criminal sanctions would be imposed on him. The official warning was approved by the chief of police of the town of Tauragė on 3 June 2008.
On the same day the applicant submitted a complaint to the Klaipėda Regional Administrative Court, stating that the official warning was illegal, unfounded and lacked sufficient reasons.
On 13 November 2008 the court dismissed the applicant’s complaint and held that the official warning had been given in accordance with the provisions of national law. It also held that it had been unnecessary for the official warning to refer to specific actions by the applicant as the basis for applying the preventive measure. Moreover, the court stated that information about the applicant’s possible involvement in the activities of a criminal association was classified information and that although domestic law provided that such information could only be used as evidence after it had been made public, that rule was not absolute and in that particular case it could be used as evidence.
The applicant lodged an appeal and on 1 February 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed the conclusions of the court of first instance and dismissed his appeal.
On 29 May 2009 the applicant was given a fine of EUR 579 for failing to comply with a police officer’s order to go to a police station, without informing the authorities in advance that he would not be able to attend. The applicant explained that he had called the police station but nobody had answered. However, on 2 December 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed his complaint because the date had in fact been agreed with the applicant and there was no information to show that he had called the police station.
On 6 June 2009 the applicant was ordered by the Tauragė District Court not to communicate with a list of twenty-eight people, not to change his permanent residence without police permission and not to participate in hunts organised by the Kurtinys hunting club.
The applicant appealed and on 29 June 2009 the Klaipėda Regional Court lowered the number of people with whom the applicant was not allowed to communicate to fifteen. The limitation on participating in hunts was broadened to include participation in any activities arranged by the Kurtinys club. The court also accepted the applicant’s argument that the inability of the applicant or his lawyer to get access to the classified documents could infringe the principle of equality of arms.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Article 4 of the Law on the Prevention of Organised Crime provides that preventive measures can be applied after information has been received that a person might be involved in the activities of a criminal association, that he provides financial support which is beneficial for the development of a criminal activity, or that he might extort property, threaten people, or commit economic, financial or other crimes and cause serious consequences or damage to the interests of the State, society or other people.
Article 5 of the Law on the Prevention of Organised Crime provides that a decision to apply a preventive measure can be taken by a chief of police, taking into account information that has been received in accordance with the law.
Article 7 § 1(19) of the Law on State Secrets and Official Secrets provides that a State secret can consist of detailed intelligence information about the activities of people participating in secret service work, secret service officers and other secret service workers. It can also include information regarding intelligence activity, the means and methods used in such work, intelligence assignments and results, information received as a result of intelligence work and analytical information.
A ruling of the Constitutional Court of 15 May 2007 provides that heed must be paid in all cases to the constitutional concept of a State secret as information which is not subject to publication or dissemination, which if revealed could inflict damage on the State as representative of the common good of the whole of society, or on the political organisation of the whole of society, the purpose of which is to guarantee human rights and freedoms and protect the interests of the general public. Information that is deemed to be a State or official secret may only be used as evidence in an administrative case after it has been declassified in the manner provided for by law (namely, the Law on State Secrets and Official Secrets), that is to say that the use as evidence of information which has not been declassified is prohibited. However, that prohibition is not absolute. The question of whether information considered a State or official secret will be regarded as evidence in an administrative case is decided on a case-by-case basis.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention of a violation of his right to respect for his private life owing to the imposition of preventive measures on him on the basis of classified information which he did not have access to.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of the fact that preventive measures were applied to the applicant on the basis of classified information?
2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy