No violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election)

Angelika Nußberger;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE in GPE , GPE . He lives in GPE , a town in GPE .

The applicant is a businessman . He used to be a politician . In DATE he established and was chairman of ORG ( PERSON partija ) in GPE . In the parliamentary elections of DATE , ORG obtained more votes than any other political party . DATE and DATE the applicant was Minister of the Economy , but resigned from that post after ORG ( PERSON tarnybinės etikos komisija ) found that he had breached the principle of not mixing private and public interests .

In DATE a criminal investigation was opened on suspicion of fraudulent accounting by ORG . The authorities suspected that the applicant , acting in complicity with CARDINAL other members of that party NORP the party treasurer and CARDINAL high - level administrators – as well as CARDINAL other person , had doctored ORG accounts . ORG , as a legal entity , was also a suspect in the case .

DATE the authorities searched the applicant ’s home in GPE town , as well as ORG headquarters .

In DATE the prosecutor attempted to call the applicant for questioning . However , the applicant could not be reached on his telephone , nor summoned . The applicant ’s wife explained to the prosecutor that the last time she had seen her husband was in DATE , when he had left for GPE . The applicant ’s wife refused to give any other testimony related to her husband .

On DATE the applicant sent the NORP Attorney General a letter to the effect that he was aware of the ongoing pre - trial investigation regarding him and ORG , and that some of his party colleagues had already been questioned . He claimed that he was staying in GPE , without disclosing his exact address . He asserted that the criminal case was “ a dirty political game ” ( teisinės institucijos dalyvauja nešvariame politiniame žaidime ) and had no basis , and expressed his intention to involve international organisations in his case . He also stated that he would return to GPE when his family circumstances permitted . In particular , his brother had recently died in GPE and his mother needed support .

On DATE the applicant resigned from the post of ORG chairman .

On DATE ORG website made public the applicant ’s “ Letter to ORG ( PERSON žmonėms ) , in which he stated that he would not hurry to return to GPE because he was expecting the [ NORP ] authorities to start a search for him . He did not wish to be questioned in GPE , and wanted international organisations to be involved in his proceedings .

On DATE the prosecutor decided to declare the applicant a suspect in the criminal case . The prosecutor found that , as chairman of ORG and also acting in an organised group with other members of that party , the applicant had sought to finance the party unlawfully and to avoid the financial supervision of the party and its political campaigns , by organising the party ’s fraudulent accounting from DATE . As a result , it had been impossible to establish the structure of the party ’s assets and expenditure for DATE . In particular , ORG had omitted from its accounts CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL – MONEY ( ORG ) ) worth of income , and some LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) worth of expenditure . The applicant had also provided inaccurate data to ORG and the tax authorities . This was in breach of a number of Criminal Code provisions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , as well as the PERSON on the Funding of Political Parties and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the Vilnius City Second District Court sanctioned , in absentia , the applicant ’s arrest and remand in custody on the grounds that he had known about the criminal proceedings but was hiding in GPE and had failed to present himself to the prosecutors to take part in the criminal proceedings . It was reasonable to assume that the applicant would continue to hide from the NORP authorities , thus obstructing the investigation . On DATE the prosecutor ordered a search for the applicant .

In DATE both decisions were made available to the applicant ’s lawyer .

On DATE at the ORG congress , another person was elected as chairman of ORG in the applicant ’s place .

On DATE the authorities of GPE arrested the applicant in GPE . On DATE he asked for political asylum in GPE and was immediately released . On the basis of information that reached them by ORG , the NORP prosecutors then asked their colleagues in GPE to arrest the applicant and to extradite him to GPE .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy Attorney General of ORG refused the request , relying on LAW , which states that extradition will not be granted if the offence in respect of which it is requested is regarded by the requested ORG as a political offence or as an offence connected with a political offence .

Having taken into account the criminal charges in respect of ORG , including evidence by independent auditors , on DATE ORG decided not to allocate it appropriations from the ORG budget .

In DATE ORG confirmed the applicant as a ORG candidate in elections to the municipal council of the GPE district . Given that electoral candidates in municipal elections had immunity from prosecution , the prosecutor asked ORG to permit the restriction of the applicant ’s freedom and his prosecution ( see LAW on the Elections to the Seimas , cited in paragraph CARDINAL below ) . At a hearing attended by the applicant ’s lawyer , the prosecutor and representatives of the media and ORG , ORG granted that request .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant ’s lawyer , who asserted that the restriction of his client ’s liberty was in breach of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention because he would then be unable to meet potential voters and proclaim his electoral programme . The NORP court had regard to the ORG ’s case - law on the subject and emphasised that the right to stand for elections was not absolute ( ORG referred to GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINALVI ) . Moreover , according to the ORG guidelines , fundamental rights and freedoms , including the freedom to move within a ORG , could be limited in order to protect the public interest ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the applicant ’s case , he had not been denied the very essence of his right to be elected . The ORG , for its part , had an obligation to prosecute criminal acts and to take measures to ensure that criminal proceedings were not unduly protracted . The applicant had been hiding from prosecution in GPE , which showed that he had deliberately breached NORP law by avoiding arrest which had earlier been sanctioned by a court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG did not find erroneous the argument put forward by ORG that “ the applicant sought immunity status as a candidate in his own interests , which essentially had no connection with his electoral rights ” . One could not dismiss the likelihood that if immunity from prosecution was granted , the applicant could return to GPE , and would leave the country before his immunity expired [ elected members of municipal councils do not have immunity from prosecution , see paragraph CARDINAL below ] . This would undermine society ’s trust in the ORG and in the LOC duty to investigate crimes and prosecute perpetrators to protect society from attempts to commit crime .

ORG also emphasised that the prosecutor ’s request to lift the applicant ’s immunity had no connection with his participation in the municipal elections ; nor was it intended to prevent the applicant from being elected . In fact , the criminal proceedings had started long before the municipal elections , the date of which was not announced by the Seimas until DATE . The applicant therefore had plenty of time to return to GPE from hiding in GPE and to testify in the criminal case , thus also being able to fully take part in the municipal elections .

Whilst de facto residing in GPE , the applicant took part in the municipal elections in GPE on DATE , and was successfully elected .

On DATE ORG granted a request submitted by the applicant to annul his powers as a member of the municipal council .

In DATE , GPE , a member of ORG ( PERSON ) political party , who was elected to the Seimas for the term from DATE to DATE representing the PERSON constituency , became mayor of the ORG district municipality and therefore resigned from the ORG .

In DATE ORG consequently announced new elections to the Seimas in that constituency .

NORP In DATE , ORG decided to take part in the parliamentary elections in the PERSON constituency , which were to take place on CARDINAL and , if necessary , on DATE ( second round of voting ) . ORG confirmed the applicant as its candidate in that constituency .

On DATE , ORG confirmed the applicant as a candidate in the LAW elections .

On DATE , ORG announced the list of CARDINAL candidates who were to stand in that single - member constituency . The applicant ’s name was among those listed , and the electoral campaign started on DATE .

On DATE , a spokesperson for the ORG President stated that the President found it ‘ odd that a person who had asked for political asylum in GPE , decried the NORP institutions and was being searched for by the NORP law - enforcement authorities , could be registered as a candidate in the parliamentary elections’ .

On the basis of a request by the prosecutor , on DATE ORG decided that the applicant could be arrested or his liberty could be otherwise restricted during the electoral campaign , until he was elected and took the oath as a parliamentarian .

The applicant appealed through his lawyer . He relied , inter alia , on LAW . CARDINAL to the Convention .

By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . It noted that the immunities of candidates in municipal elections were analogous to those applied in the context of elections to the Seimas . The grounds for lifting the applicant ’s immunity had already been decided by the res judicata ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL above ) . No new factual circumstances had been brought to the court ’s attention to justify a different ruling .

The applicant , accompanied by a group of ORG Members of ORG , returned to ORG from GPE on DATE . On DATE he was arrested , signed the notice of the offences of which he was suspected , was questioned and remanded in custody .

At a hearing before the GPE City Second District Court of DATE , at which the applicant was present , the court decided to vary the remand measure to house arrest . The court noted that the earlier court order to arrest and detain the applicant had been adopted whilst he was being searched for ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Now , that he had returned to GPE from GPE , and was not refusing to testify , a milder remand measure could be imposed . The court thus ordered the applicant to stay at his home in GPE town from TIME , not to leave the GPE town area , not to communicate with the CARDINAL other suspects in his criminal case , and not to attend public places ( nesilankyti viešosiose vietose ) .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to release him from house arrest , claiming that such a remand measure interfered with his electoral rights , in particular , to meet with voters in the PERSON electoral district . The applicant relied on LAW No . CARDINAL . He also mentioned that he wished to leave PERSON town so that he could visit a medical establishment in another town .

For his part , the prosecutor lodged an appeal with ORG , urging it to impose pre - trial detention on the applicant .

During the first round of voting in the PERSON single - member constituency , which took place on DATE , the applicant and another candidate received , respectively , CARDINAL and MONEY of the votes . They would thus compete in a second round of elections , which was scheduled for DATE .

By a final ruling of DATE , ORG upheld the lower court ’s decision to place the applicant under house arrest , with the exception that he was now allowed to visit public places from TIME to CARDINAL p.m. The prohibition on his leaving GPE town remained effective . The court held that the applicant should be kept under house arrest in order to protect interests important to society : he had earlier been hiding from the prosecutor , the sums not accounted for by ORG amounted to CARDINAL of NORP litai , and there was reason to believe that he could obstruct the investigation . The court also considered that house arrest would not interfere with the applicant ’s electoral rights or with his business or family interests .

On DATE , ORG asked ORG to intervene as an intermediary with a view to the prosecutors mitigating the remand measure , house arrest , so that the applicant could compete in the parliamentary electoral campaign on equal grounds .

On DATE ORG answered in the negative : should it express any opinion about the reasonableness of the applicant ’s remand measure , this could be interpreted as undue interference with the courts’ competence and a breach of the principle of separation of powers .

On DATE , the applicant himself asked the prosecutors to modify the remand measure for the period of DATE , and to allow him to leave PERSON town so that he could go to the PERSON constituency , situated QUANTITY away , to meet the voters and compete with the other candidate on equal terms . The applicant stated that his meetings with the voters during the second round of elections would start on DATE . He also added a CARDINAL - page document describing the schedule of meetings between members of his party , including some renowned party members , and voters . From the documents in the ORG ’s possession it transpires that those meetings had already taken place from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , that is , before the first voting round , in the PERSON constituency . The schedule indicated that the applicant would have taken part in those meetings had the prosecutors allowed him to meet the voters .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , the prosecutor rejected the applicant ’s request . He noted that the applicant had earlier made public statements that he could lead the electoral campaign even without physically being in GPE . For the prosecutor , the applicant could also take part in the electoral campaign by other means provided for by law , and without violating the conditions of his house arrest . The prosecutor stressed that house arrest had been imposed on the applicant by a court ruling of DATE and had been upheld by a higher court on CARDINAL DATE . Accordingly , the applicant must have known in advance , and before making plans for meeting voters , about the limitations his house arrest entailed .

On DATE ORG asked the prosecutor to permit the applicant to leave PERSON town for the PERSON constituency during the electoral campaign . The following day the prosecutor rejected that request , relying on the grounds set out by the earlier court rulings of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , and the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant also lodged an appeal with the higher prosecutor , asking him to modify the remand measure , house arrest , and to permit him to meet voters “ eye - to - eye ” in order to compete in the elections on equal grounds with the other candidate . The applicant also insisted that he wanted permission to leave ORG town in order to visit doctors in other towns and for his business interests . Quoting certain information in the press , the applicant insisted that there had been a political decision to prevent him from becoming elected .

NORP The applicant ’s appeal was dismissed by the higher prosecutor on DATE . The prosecutor noted that the applicant had known of the final ORG ruling of CARDINAL DATE , which was not amenable to appeal , but had ignored it . Despite the adoption of that ruling , he had drawn up a schedule of meetings with voters . There were no new circumstances warranting a change in the applicant ’s remand measure . The prosecutor ’s decision was sent to the applicant on DATE , and could have been appealed against to the court .

The applicant claimed that he had received that decision on CARDINAL DATE .

During the second round of voting in the PERSON constituency on DATE , the applicant received CARDINAL votes ( or MONEY of the votes cast ) . The other candidate , who was a member of the ORG political party , received CARDINAL votes ( or MONEY of the votes cast ) , and thus became a member of the Seimas .

On DATE the applicant was re - elected as chairman of ORG .

After the parliamentary elections , the prosecutor granted or refused a number of the applicant ’s requests to leave his home in GPE . In particular , in DATE the prosecutor permitted the applicant to leave PERSON town so that he could visit , during the daytime – TIME a cemetery in a village situated in GPE district for All Saints Day on DATE .

In DATE the applicant asked the prosecutor for permission to visit the ORG sports school , situated in GPE in the GPE district , where ORG congress ( rinkiminis suvažiavimas ) was to take place . The applicant pointed out that GPE and GPE town “ touched each other on the map ” ( Vilainių kaimas ir GPE miestas ribojasi , todėl ORG sporto mokykla yra praktiškai ant kaimo ir miesto ribos ) . He also asked the prosecutor for permission to attend the same sports school to play tennis CARDINAL times a week , a sport that the applicant had practised previously . The prosecutor granted those requests .

In DATE the prosecutor permitted the applicant to leave GPE town to visit , DATE , doctors in GPE , a town situated QUANTITY from GPE town .

On DATE the applicant also asked the prosecutor for permission to take part in a live show , “ Dancing with the Stars ” , which was to be filmed TIME on DATE in the FAC leisure and entertainment centre ( pramogų centre ) in GPE . The prosecutor declined the request , holding that the timing was incompatible with the house arrest , which was imposed on the applicant from TIME The prosecutor pointed out that the applicant had known beforehand about the house arrest conditions , which did not match those of the television show .

In DATE the prosecutor also refused a request made by DATE previously to be permitted to travel to GPE to attend a meeting of ORG and NORP for ORG ( NORP demokratų partija ) , scheduled for DATE . The prosecutor referred to the ruling of ORG of DATE and noted that such a request could not be granted because the applicant had been avoiding justice for a long time . Moreover , “ the house arrest prohibited the applicant from even leaving the area of GPE .

With the prosecutor ’s permission , in DATE the applicant visited a cardiology clinic in GPE . The doctors there recommended that the applicant return to that clinic for consultations and for more profound tests in DATE . Having obtained a fresh authorisation by the prosecutor , in DATE the applicant stayed in the GPE clinic for TIME and underwent several more tests DATE .

In DATE , the applicant asked the prosecutor to permit him to stay DATE in a convalescence sanatorium in GPE ( a town situated QUANTITY from PERSON ) . The applicant referred to the NORP cardiologists’ recommendations and stated that the necessary procedures could be performed only in that particular sanatorium . The prosecutor granted the request , also stressing that the applicant had earlier requested to see the material in the case file , but had never come to the prosecutor ’s office to see them . The applicant had until DATE to do so ( see the following paragraph ) .

The pre - trial investigation in the criminal case was terminated on DATE , and the applicant was then allowed to see the material in the case file until DATE and , if necessary , to make requests to supplement the file .

According to a survey of the press carried out at the applicant ’s request , from DATE until DATE , the words “ ORG ... suspect ” , “ PERSON ... suspect ” had been mentioned in CARDINAL press articles .

On DATE the criminal case was transferred to ORG for examination .

On DATE the ORG released the applicant from house arrest . The court modified that remand measure to an obligation not to leave his place of residence in GPE town for DATE without informing the authorities , and to pay bail of LTL CARDINAL . The applicant also signed an agreement not to communicate with the CARDINAL other persons suspected in the criminal case .

During the parliamentary elections of DATE , the applicant and another member of his political party , who was a co - accused in the criminal case , were elected to the Seimas from DATE to DATE for ORG . They therefore obtained immunity from prosecution . In DATE the ORG allowed the applicant ’s prosecution and the restriction of his freedom . The Seimas also permitted the prosecution of the applicant ’s co - accused .

By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE of ORG , the remand measure – the obligation not to leave the applicant ’s place of residence DATE was revoked . The other remand measure , bail , remained in force .

On DATE , the applicant was elected to ORG as a ORG Member . He resigned his parliamentary seat in GPE , because under NORP law a Member of ORG could not be a member of the LAW at the same time ( see paragraph DATE below ) . The NORP authorities then asked ORG to lift the applicant ’s immunity in order to allow his prosecution . The prosecutor stated , inter alia , that as a result of fraudulent book - keeping of ORG and the submission of such information to ORG and the tax authorities in DATE , the ORG had suffered serious pecuniary damage in the sum of about LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , because appropriations had been allocated to ORG from the ORG budget .

Having heard the applicant , and having had regard to a report by ORG , in DATE ORG lifted the applicant ’s immunity , thus allowing the criminal proceedings in GPE to continue ( decision ORG ) . ORG noted that the applicant had been charged with offences of false accounting in relation to the financing of a political party during a period prior to his election to ORG . No cogent evidence had been adduced as to the existence of any fumus persecutionis and the offences with which the applicant had been charged had nothing to do with his activities as a Member of ORG .

In DATE the applicant and CARDINAL of his co - accused were all elected to the Seimas of DATE - CARDINAL for ORG . The applicant then asked ORG in GPE to annul his mandate as a Member of ORG . His request was granted . At the ORG request , the Seimas lifted the applicant ’s immunity and the criminal proceedings resumed .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of fraudulent accounting committed in complicity with CARDINAL other persons , under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , QUANTITY and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . The court sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment .

The applicant and the prosecutor appealed against the conviction .

NORP Following reorganisation of ORG , the criminal case against it was discontinued by the same judgment of ORG , applying by analogy LAW CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , which provides that criminal proceedings can not be conducted in respect of a deceased person . In particular , on DATE the legal personality of ORG ceased to exist after its reorganisation , and on DATE it was struck from ORG . ORG merged with the LOC political party , and on DATE a new legal entity was registered under the name of ORG ( Darbo partija ( LOC ) ) . DATE the latter party merged with another political party DATE ORG ( ORG partija ) . It was registered as a new legal entity but under the previous name , ORG ( Darbo partija ) .

According to the Government , that new party continued to use the same logo as it had used before DATE .

On DATE the applicant was again elected to ORG as a ORG member . In DATE ORG in GPE granted the applicant ’s request to resign his seat in the Seimas .

At the request of the NORP courts , in DATE ORG lifted the applicant ’s immunity . This time ORG noted , inter alia , that the criminal proceedings at issue were identical , in terms of content , to the proceedings in respect of which it had already lifted the applicant ’s immunity in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . At that time the applicant had been charged with , in essence , heading an organised group with the aim of committing a number of criminal offences , with disregard for his duty , as party chairman , to monitor the party ’s finances . For example , fictitious books were allegedly kept in order to conceal revenue and expenditure . In general , he was alleged to have frequently given instructions not to officially declare or record various business and financial transactions . From the documents in ORG possession it was clear that the definition of the offences giving rise to the charges against the applicant had always remained the same . Moreover , no convincing evidence was available to demonstrate fumus persecutionis . The offences of which the applicant was accused had nothing to do with his work as a Member of ORG . Lastly , ORG noted that the decision on the waiver of immunity in no way constituted a statement of opinion regarding the applicant ’s guilt or innocence , as this was the subject of national proceedings .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction under LAW for fraudulent management of ORG accounts , having acted in an organised group . He was acquitted under LAW . The criminal case under LAW was discontinued because of prescription .

On the basis of an appeal on points of law lodged by the prosecutor , the criminal case is currently pending before ORG .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Violation of Article 4 - Prohibition of slavery and forced labour (Article 4 - Positive obligations;Article 4-1 - Trafficking in human beings;Article 4-2 - Forced labour);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Robert Spano

The applicants , NORP migrants living in GPE without a work permit , were recruited on different dates DATE and DATE in GPE and other places , to work on the region ’s biggest strawberry farm , at GPE , a village of CARDINAL inhabitants in the regional district of GPE , in the western part of the NORP peninsula . In that area there are a number of production units , of various sizes , specialising in the intensive cultivation of strawberries . Exports account for PERCENT of the local production , which covers PERCENT of the NORP market . Most of the workers are irregular migrants from GPE and GPE . Some are employed on the farms permanently and others only on a seasonal basis .

The production unit in question was run by ORG , the applicants’ employers .

The applicants were among a total of CARDINAL workers divided into CARDINAL teams , each CARDINAL headed by a NORP national who reported to ORG

The workers had been promised a wage of CARDINAL ( ORG ) for CARDINAL hours’ work and CARDINAL for TIME of overtime , with QUANTITY per day deducted for food . They worked in greenhouses DATE from TIME picking strawberries under the supervision of armed guards employed by ORG They lived in makeshift shacks made of cardboard , nylon and bamboo , without toilets or running water . According to them , their employers had warned them that they would only receive their wages if they continued to work for them .

On DATE in DATE , DATE and on DATE the workers went on strike demanding payment of their unpaid wages , but without success .

On DATE the employers recruited other NORP migrants to work in the fields . Fearing that they would not be paid , CARDINAL workers from DATE who worked in the fields started moving towards the CARDINAL employers , who were on the spot , in order to demand their wages . CARDINAL of the armed guards then opened fire against the workers , seriously injuring CARDINAL of them , including CARDINAL of the applicants ( listed under numbers CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) . The wounded were taken to hospital and were subsequently questioned by police .

On DATE and DATE the police arrested GPE and ORG , together with the guard who had fired the shots and another armed overseer . During the preliminary investigation by the local police , a number of other NORP , including some who had worked with the suspects , were used as interpreters .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor charged the CARDINAL suspects with attempted murder and other offences , and also , in response to a request from the prosecutor at ORG , with human trafficking under LAW . The charge of attempted murder was subsequently reclassified as grievous bodily harm .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor acknowledged that CARDINAL workers – including CARDINAL team - leaders – , who had all been injured during the incident , were victims of human trafficking , thus making them lawful residents under LAW of PERSON no . PERSON ( on the repression of human trafficking , crimes against sexual freedom , child pornography , and more generally sexual exploitation ) .

On DATE CARDINAL other workers , including the CARDINAL applicants who had not been injured ( listed under numbers CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL ) , applied to the ORG public prosecutor for charges of human trafficking , attempted murder and assault , in respect of them also , to be brought against the CARDINAL defendants . They stated that they had been employed on the farm run by ORG in conditions of human trafficking and forced labour and that they were part of the group which had come under fire . Relying on LAW to LAW , known as the “ LAW ” , of DATE ( “ to Prevent , Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons ” ) , they asked the public prosecutor to bring charges under LAW of LAW against their employers , accusing them of exploiting them in a work - related context . They further alleged that , on DATE , they had also been present at the scene of the incident and that they had gone there to demand their unpaid wages , with the result that they were also victims of the offences committed against the other CARDINAL complainants .

The police questioned each of the above - mentioned CARDINAL applicants , who signed a record containing their statements , which had been given under oath and were accompanied by their photos , and they forwarded the statements to the public prosecutor .

NORP In decision CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG public prosecutor rejected the application of DATE workers . He emphasised that those workers had been sought in order to give testimony during the preliminary investigation and that CARDINAL of them had been traced and interviewed ( including the CARDINAL applicants mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He noted that it transpired from their statements and other material in the file that their allegations did not correspond to the reality . He explained that if they had really been the victims of the offences complained of , they would have gone to the police immediately on DATE , like the CARDINAL other workers had done , and would not have waited until DATE . In his view , the claim that the complainants had been afraid and had left their huts was not credible because they had been close to the scene of the incident and , when the police arrived , they could have returned to make their complaints known . He further noted that CARDINAL out of CARDINAL complainants interviewed had stated they had been injured and that , unlike the CARDINAL workers mentioned above , none of those CARDINAL workers had gone to hospital . Lastly , he observed that all the complainants had stated that they had made statements to the police after learning that they would receive residence permits as victims of human trafficking .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG dismissed the appeals of DATE workers against decision no . CARDINAL on the grounds that the material in the case file did not substantiate their allegations and that they had sought to present themselves as victims of human trafficking in order to obtain residence permits ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The accused were committed to stand trial in ORG . Only GPE was charged with committing the offence of human trafficking . The CARDINAL other defendants , namely ORG and the CARDINAL armed overseers , were charged with aiding and abetting that offence . The hearings began on DATE and ended on DATE . The CARDINAL workers mentioned above joined the proceedings as civil parties and were represented by their lawyers PERSON and PERSON , whose fees were paid by ORG .

In his oral submissions the public prosecutor pointed out that the applicants who had been injured in the incident had been living and working in GPE without any permit , at the mercy of networks which exploited human beings and in conditions which enabled them to be characterised as victims of human trafficking . In his view both the material element and the mental element of this offence were made out in the present case .

The public prosecutor further emphasised that exploitation in a labour context was part of the notion of exploitation provided for in NORP and other international law instruments as a means of committing the offence of human trafficking . He indicated that LAW of LAW prohibited forced or compulsory labour . He explained that the notion of exploitation through work included all acts which constituted a breach of employment law , such as the provisions concerning TIME , working conditions and workers’ insurance . In his view , that form of exploitation also obtained through the performance of work for the benefit of the offender himself .

Referring to the facts of the case , the public prosecutor explained that the employer , ORG , had not paid the workers for DATE , that he had only paid them a very small sum for food , deducted from their wages , and had promised to pay the rest later . He observed as follows : that the defendants were unscrupulous and imposed themselves by making threats and carrying weapons ; the workers laboured in extreme physical conditions , had to work TIME and were constantly humiliated ; on DATE , ORG had informed the workers that he would not pay them and would kill them , with the help of his co - accused , if they did not carry on working for him ; as the workers had not given in to the threats , he had told them to leave and said that he would take on another team in their place and that he would burn down their huts if they refused to leave . He lastly noted that , when he recruited them , ORG had promised the complainants makeshift shelters and a DATE wage of ORG DATE which in his view was the only solution for the victims to be sure of a means of subsistence DATE and that GPE had thus succeeded , at that point , in obtaining their consent in order to be able to exploit them subsequently .

NORP The public prosecutor asserted that the incident of DATE was illustrative of a situation of over - exploitation and barbaric treatment to which the major landowners in the region had subjected the migrant workers . He took the view that the incident had been a barbaric and armed aggression by NORP employers against the migrants , conjuring up images of a “ southern slave - trade ” which had no place in GPE .

At the hearing , one of the witnesses , an officer from the police station of ORG , stated that DATE before the incident of CARDINAL DATE some workers had gone to the police station to complain that their employers had refused to pay them their wages and that CARDINAL of his colleagues had subsequently had a telephone conversation with GPE on this subject .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG acquitted the CARDINAL defendants on the charge of trafficking in human beings , on the ground that the material element of the offence was not made out in the present case . It convicted CARDINAL of the armed guards and ORG of grievous bodily harm and unlawful use of firearms , sentencing them to prison for terms of DATE , respectively . As regards the overseer who had been responsible for the shots , it took the view that he had not intended to kill those who were attacked in the incident and that he had been trying to make them move away so that the newly recruited workers would not be approached by them . As to GPE , it acquitted him on the ground that it had not been established that he was one of the workers’ employers ( and therefore that he was obliged to pay them their wages ) or that he had been involved as an instigator of the armed attack against them . ORG commuted their prison sentences to a financial penalty of CARDINAL per day of detention . It also ordered the CARDINAL convicted men to pay the sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to the CARDINAL workers who were recognised as victims ( about EUR CARDINAL per person ) .

ORG noted that the workers’ conditions of employment had provided that they would receive : PERSON CARDINAL for TIME of work and LAW for TIME ; food , of which the cost would be deducted from their wages ; and materials for the construction of electrified huts next to their plantations , at their ORG expense , to satisfy their basic accommodation needs DATE while allowing them the option of living elsewhere in the region . It noted that these conditions had been brought to the knowledge of the workers by their fellow countrymen who were team - leaders .

ORG thus observed that the workers had been informed of their conditions of employment and that they had accepted them after finding them satisfactory . As to the amount of the wages , it found that this was the usual amount paid by the other producers in the region and the workers had not been obliged to accept it . In the court ’s view , the information provided to the workers by their team - leaders and their compatriots working for other employers about the reliable payment of wages constituted a major factor in the choice of ORG as employer . ORG further noted that , until DATE , the workers had not made any complaint about their employer , whether concerning his conduct or the payment of wages , and they had only started to complain at DATE or DATE about a delay in payment .

NORP Moreover , ORG rejected the ORG allegations that they had not received any wages and had been subjected to a threatening and intimidating attitude , on the part of the defendants , throughout the duration of their work , on the following grounds : those allegations had been expressed for the first time at the hearing , and not at the stage of the preliminary enquiries or investigation ; certain intimidating acts had led the complainants to leave their place of work ; and the description of these acts was particularly imprecise and vague . ORG also noted that it transpired from the testimony of the workers that , during their free time , they were able to move freely around the region , do their shopping in shops which operated by agreement with the defendants , play cricket and take part in an association set up by their compatriots . It added that it had not been shown that ORG had , under false pretences and by means of promises , coerced the workers into agreeing to work for him by taking advantage of their situation of vulnerability , especially as it found that they were not in such a situation .

ORG took the view that it had also been shown that the relations between the workers and their employers had been governed by a binding employment relationship and its conditions were not intended to trap the workers or to lead to their domination by the employers . On that point , it explained that the conditions had not led the complainants to live in a state of exclusion from the outside world , without any possibility for them to abandon this relationship and look for another job . It further noted that the workers had been in a position to negotiate their conditions of employment at the time of their recruitment and that their unlawful presence in GPE had not been used by their employers as a means of coercion to force them to continue working .

ORG indicated that , for the notion of vulnerability to be constituted , the victim had to be in a state of impoverishment such that his refusal to submit to the offender would appear absurd ; in other words the victim had to be in a state of absolute weakness preventing him from protecting himself . It added that the victim would be exploited , as a result of his vulnerability , if he unconditionally submitted himself to the offender and was cut off from the outside world , which in the court ’s view was not the case here since : ( a ) the relations between the workers and their employers had been governed by a binding employment relationship , and ( b ) its conditions were not intended to trap the workers or to lead to their domination by the employers , such that the workers might be cut off from the outside world and find it impossible to withdraw from the employment relationship and find another job . ORG further observed that most of the workers had stated that they would have continued to work for their employers had they been paid their wages .

Lastly , as to the ORG allegation that they had received death threats from the defendants DATE an allegation that it did not accept DATE , ORG took the view that , if that statement had been true the workers would have left their place of work without hesitation . The fact of fearing for their lives would have prevailed over any other consideration ( such as : their unpaid wage demands ; their need to earn a living , which allegedly could not have been satisfied in view of the objective inability to find another job ; and all the other arguments that the workers had put forward to justify the fact that they had continued to work ) .

On DATE the convicted defendants appealed against the judgment of ORG . The appeal , which is still pending before that same court , has suspensive effect .

On DATE the workers’ lawyers lodged an application with the public prosecutor at ORG asking him to appeal against ORG judgment . In their application they submitted that ORG had not adequately examined the charge of human trafficking . They took the view that , in order to determine whether that court had properly applied Article CARDINAL of LAW , it was necessary to examine whether the accused had taken advantage of any vulnerability of the foreign nationals in order to exploit them .

On DATE the prosecutor refused to lodge an appeal . He gave reasons for his decision , indicating only that the statutory conditions for an appeal on points of law were not met . As a result of this decision , the part of the DATE judgment concerning human trafficking became “ irrevocable ” ( αμετάκλητη ) .


No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Obtain attendance of witnesses)

Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and is detained in GPE pri ORG .

On DATE a person called ORG called the police and informed them that CARDINAL people had been stabbed in the town of LOC . Only the injured people , namely ORG , and GPE , were found at the place of the incident . TIME the applicant and his CARDINAL sons , GPE and GPE , were arrested on suspicion of attempted murder .

On DATE the applicant , PERSON and GPE were brought before the investigating judge . The applicant , who was assisted by counsel , gave the following statement in his defence . He alleged that he had intended to meet ORG in order to demand that he pay rent for workers who had previously been accommodated in his flat and to cancel their residence registration at that address . Before he set off to a bar where ORG workers met after work ( hereinafter “ the bar ” ) , he telephoned his sons and asked them to come and assist him in case he met any trouble from GPE After Š.A. refused to resolve the matter , the applicant left the bar and was followed by CARDINAL of Š.A. ’s workers . Š.A. and GPE , CARDINAL of the workers , started hitting the applicant all over his body . His sons , standing nearby , came to his aid . After Š.A. hit ORG , the applicant , an electrical fitter by profession , took out the knife he used for work , which had a seven- to QUANTITY blade , and began brandishing it . Among others , he stabbed Š.A. several times in the back . Š.A. then backed off and the applicant and his sons fled the scene . Once at home the applicant gave the knife to his wife , who disposed of it . The applicant also stated that the only injuries he had sustained had been some bruises on his head .

The applicant ’s sons stated that their father had met with ORG and another person and that a fight had started . When they had gone to help him , a number of other men had approached and had started beating them . The applicant ’s sons also stated that they had not been carrying any knives themselves . According to them , GPE had defended himself with a wooden clothes hanger .

The injured parties , PERSON , PERSON , and PERSON , were also questioned in the investigation and they stated , inter alia , as follows .

PERSON stated that after leaving the bar he had been attacked by the applicant , who had hit him on the nose with the handle of the knife . PERSON and PERSON had arrived after that and the applicant had again attacked PERSON had attacked PERSON while PERSON had attacked GPE In the course of the fight the applicant had stabbed PERSON and had also attacked PERSON and GPE , before fleeing the scene . The applicant and his sons had had knives . The applicant ’s knife had had a QUANTITY blade .

PERSON stated that he had heard people saying there was a crowd outside the bar , he had gone out and found PERSON being hit in the face and running . He had then seen the applicant attacking PERSON He had attempted to separate them , but GPE had stabbed him . GPE had then fled and the applicant had stabbed him several times , which had caused him to faint .

Š.A. testified that after being told that something was going on outside the bar he had gone out and found PERSON and PERSON being attacked . He had attempted to help PERSON , who had been stabbed in the neck by the applicant , and PERSON He had been stabbed in the back several times by the applicant .

In addition to the accused and the injured parties the investigating judge questioned CARDINAL witnesses PERSON , GPE , GPE , Še . A. and GPE

A.Č. testified that he had noticed the applicant and his sons , together with PERSON and another person , standing QUANTITY from the bar . Š.A. had approached them and TIME they had started to fight . According to ORG , only those CARDINAL people had been involved in the fight . He had not seen any weapons , but had seen blood on ORG shirt . In addition , the third victim ( PERSON ) had been holding his neck . ORG also stated that he had called to his acquaintance GPE to telephone the police .

GPE gave a fairly detailed account . He explained that he had seen the applicant in the bar arguing with PERSON and then leaving TIME before the fight . TIME PERSON had left the bar as well . Š.A. had received a call and had gone out . After being alerted by ORG and seeing the fight through the window , he had gone out of the bar and had seen the applicant and his sons , as well as PERSON , PERSON , and GPE , fighting . He testified that the applicant and his sons had been the weaker parties in the fight until the applicant had pulled out a knife , saying , “ Now let us see ” , and using it to attack GPE , GPE and PERSON He added that he had not seen the applicant ’s sons handling any knives and also described the applicant ’s knife as having a blade of CARDINAL to QUANTITY .

GPE , the third witness , stated that TIME in question he had first seen the applicant and later his sons park their cars in front of the bar where the events at issue took place . ORG and his friend had then approached the bar and had seen PERSON lying unconscious on the ground .

On DATE the investigating judge questioned GPE and ORG A. in the presence of the district public prosecutor and counsel for PERSON , who were also allowed to put questions . GPE told the investigating judge that he had been walking home with Še . A. when he had seen the applicant , his sons , and GPE coming out of the bar . The applicant had had his hand in his pocket and appeared to be holding something . He had seen him pointing at PERSON and heard him telling his sons , “ This is [ GPE ] ” . He had later seen his brother - in - law ( PERSON ) lying on the ground with blood on his head . The police and an ambulance had arrived .

Še . A. stated that he and GPE had been on their way home when PERSON had come out of the bar and told them to wait . Še . A. had then noticed the applicant and his sons . He had seen the applicant pointing at PERSON and saying something , whereupon the applicant had gone towards PERSON and hit him in the face with the handle of his knife . As PERSON had moved away , towards the bar , CARDINAL of the applicant ’s sons had approached . Both PERSON and Š.A. had come out of the bar at that moment and a fight had broken out between GPE , PERSON , and the applicant and PERSON , PERSON and ORG A. had approached the fighting men and tried to separate GPE and PERSON had then struck PERSON with a knife , but when PERSON had approached , he had turned to him . Še . A. had got scared and had run away . Še . A. described the knife as being old , with a blade of QUANTITY , but could not remember further details . Še . A. stated during the questioning that his work visa was valid until DATE .

In DATE the court summoned the witnesses , including GPE and Še . A. , to a hearing that had been scheduled for DATE . The summons for GPE was served on his neighbour while Še . A. ’s was served on his wife . The court subsequently cancelled the hearing and ordered that the witnesses , including GPE and Še . A. , be summoned to a hearing on DATE . However , since GPE and Še . A. no longer had a place of residence that was registered in GPE , the court on DATE asked ORG to investigate where the CARDINAL witnesses were living . Further to another request from the court , ORG informed it that PERSON A. had cancelled his residence status in ORG on DATE and that GPE had cancelled his on DATE . It appears that the police registered their enquiries about the whereabouts of GPE and Še . A. in the GPE system .

After receiving information from the authorities of the former GPE , the NORP police informed the court on DATE of GPE ’s address , whence the court subsequently sent the summons . On DATE the ORG received a statement from GPE , given to a notary , in which he excused himself from attending the hearing , saying that he needed a visa to enter GPE . However , in order to comply with the summons , he included his testimony , which he had given to the notary . He stated that he did not remember exactly when the incident in question had happened but thought it was DATE , when he had had a temporary job as a construction worker in GPE . He had at that time been in the process of moving from the applicant ’s apartment to GPE ’s apartment . As to the incident , he said that he remembered seeing PERSON lying on the ground and the police and ambulance arriving at the scene .

In DATE , further to indications from the authorities of the former GPE and the injured parties’ counsel that Še . A. was in GPE , the NORP authorities checked their data , but stated that Še . A. had never had any registered address in that country . On DATE ORG informed the court that the border police had talked to PERSON A. when he had crossed the NORP border . He had given an address in the former GPE and GPE and his mobile telephone number .

After his wife received the summons at his address in the former GPE , Še . A. wrote to the court to say that his father was very ill and that therefore he could not travel for the following DATE . In addition , he said that he had been working in GPE since DATE and could not travel to GPE as he would risk losing his job . He added that he had already given a statement regarding the charges against the applicant and the other defendants and had nothing to add . The court received the letter on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the district state prosecutor lodged an indictment against the applicant , GPE and PERSON for the attempted murder of GPE , PERSON and PERSON

Seven hearings were held , taking place on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , at which the applicant and his counsel were present , the court noted that ORG A. had sent a letter in reply to the summons ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . After the letter had been read out , the panel of judges took a decision that his and GPE ’s statements to the investigating judge should be read out at the hearing , finding that the conditions set out in point CARDINAL of the first paragraph of CARDINAL of LAW had been met ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The record of the hearing shows that no comments on the reading out of the statements were made by those present .

The accused , the injured parties and the witnesses ORG , GPE and GPE were examined at the hearings .

- The applicant kept to the statement he had given to the investigating judge and repeated that he had acted in self - defence . He now alleged that the blade of the knife had been QUANTITY long .

- A.R. maintained that he had gone to help his father but the workers had started to beat him as well . Š.A. had been on top of him , hitting him until he had managed to escape . PERSON also stated that he had had no plans to meet his brother in LOC DATE .

- E.R. stated that he had only wanted to have a coffee with a friend but had ended up in a fight , and having to defend himself until he had passed out . He denied that he had had a knife that DATE and said that he had not seen his brother or father carrying CARDINAL either .

- PERSON repeated what he had said during the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , adding some details about which of the CARDINAL accused had stabbed him and where , attributing most of the injuries to the applicant . He explained that he had assumed that PERSON had been hit in the face as he had seen him holding his hand there and added that the applicant ’s knife blade had been QUANTITY long .

- F.M. added further details to his statement from the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , testifying how he had been stabbed by the applicant and that he had seen the applicant stabbing PERSON and PERSON before fleeing the scene .

- Š.A. described how he had been stabbed by the applicant and his sons . He also testified that before arriving on the scene he had received a brief telephone call from Še . A. , who had told him that the men had been attacked outside . When he had gone outside he had seen PERSON on his knees and the applicant stabbing him . PERSON denied that the applicant or his sons had called him DATE . He was asked to explain the difference between his testimony during the investigation , when he said he had fought with CARDINAL of the applicant ’s sons , and at the hearing , when he had said that he had not fought back . He stated that he had remembered the events better during the investigation .

- A.Č. repeated what he had said during the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

- At his first examination GPE repeated what he had said during the investigation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . DATE , he changed his statement and alleged , among other things , that the fight had started after PERSON had first hit PERSON

- DATE Đ.Š. stated that he had seen GPE parking his car and going directly into the bar . He had arrived at the scene with his friends and had found PERSON lying unconscious on the floor .

NORP The panel also questioned PERSON , the surgeon who had treated all CARDINAL victims at the local hospital and who explained the severity of the individual wounds sustained by the victims . The court also obtained the testimony of CARDINAL medical experts . PERSON made an assessment of the ORG individual injuries , the most likely manner in which they had been sustained , the angles of the stab wounds , and so forth . The doctor stated that ORG had sustained CARDINAL wounds to his back and a number of wounds to his chest . PERSON had been stabbed CARDINAL times from behind , CARDINAL times in the neck and on the back of the head , once to the left shoulder and once in the left side of his chest . PERSON had been stabbed in the stomach . Dr D.M.S. performed a clinical examination of Š.A. in order to assess his wounds in more detail .

NORP The panel also examined several documents that had been called in evidence . Medical reports relating to the applicant and his sons showed that they had sustained minor injuries , the applicant notably sustaining only a few contusions ( on the right forearm , above the left scapula and on his left eye , which remained undamaged ) . Other evidence showed that the applicant had been in a dispute over workers hired by Š.A. who had vacated the applicant ’s flat . Š.A. had not made a declaration of a change of residence to the competent administrative authority , although as an employer and new landlord he should have done so . Furthermore , telephone records showed that the applicant and PERSON had had CARDINAL conversations on DATE of the incident . Moreover , PERSON , the applicant ’s son , had called his father a number of times that day just before the fight broke out .

On DATE the ORG panel found the applicant guilty of attempting to murder PERSON , GPE and GPE by stabbing the first in the neck , on the back of the head and the left side of his chest , the second in the left side of the stomach and the third in the back . CARDINAL of the offences had been aided and abetted by the applicant ’s sons , who were each convicted of CARDINAL count of attempted murder . The court sentenced the applicant to DATE and DATE in prison , while his sons were both sentenced to DATE and DATE in prison .

In a judgment of CARDINAL pages , the court established on the basis of the testimony , telephone and GPS data that the applicant had called ORG DATE of the attack in order to discuss the workers’ change of residence , but they had been unable to resolve the matter . Consequently , the applicant had gone to the bar with a view to get the workers to sign written statements concerning their change of residence . He had asked PERSON , who had been in the bar with PERSON , to sign the statement , but he had refused . After that the applicant had again called PERSON , but to no avail . Being informed of the situation by the applicant , PERSON and GPE had joined him and they had together gone in search of ORG They had stopped GPE near the bar and the applicant had hit him in the face with the handle of the knife . PERSON had withdrawn in the direction of the bar , and had been joined by ORG , who had been informed about the attack by the telephone call from ORG A fight involving the CARDINAL men had then started , with the accused being prepared for it as they had been equipped with knives . It had finished when the applicant and his sons had left the scene and GPE had called the police .

The court found that TIME had passed between PERSON being stopped by the applicant and his sons and the call to the police , while the fight and stabbing could not have lasted TIME . In particular , the court established that GPE had received the call from Še . A. at TIME second past CARDINAL in the evening and that TIME had called CARDINAL . In the meantime , he had been stabbed several times . As regards the other circumstances of the fight , such as who had hit whom , the court relied on the testimony of PERSON , PERSON , and the witnesses ORG and GPE The court , taking into account the fact that the injured parties could not have been expected to pay particular attention to what was happening to others while they themselves were engaged in the fight , found their testimony mostly consistent , except for the question of when ORG had joined the fight . The court took the view on that point that the fight had only broken out after ORG arrival , contrary to what he himself had alleged . The court further found ORG initial testimony ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to be the more persuasive of the CARDINAL , and that it was in line with the findings of the medical experts . It found that GPE had initially fought with PERSON , the applicant with PERSON , and PERSON with ORG a fact which the court found confirmed by the testimony of “ PERSON , PERSON , and also the witnesses ORG and GPE , and Še . A. ” Referring to GPE ’s initial testimony and the applicant ’s statement during the investigation , which it found was also supported by Še . A. ’s testimony , the court rejected the applicant ’s statement at the hearing that his knife had only had a QUANTITY blade .

Regarding the applicant ’s argument that he had acted in self - defence , the court found that “ the statements given by the accused were contradictory and refuted self - defence ... [ and ] the evidence produced at the hearing completely excluded that possibility [ of self - defence ] ” . The ORG found that only the defendants and the CARDINAL injured parties had engaged in the fight and that if PERSON had wanted to attack the applicant he could easily have outnumbered the defendants . The applicant and his sons had been motivated by anger towards GPE and GPE , while PERSON had become involved because he had tried to protect PERSON As the applicant had failed to convince PERSON to cancel his residence status , he had resorted to violence . If the applicant had felt that he was in danger , he could simply have walked away . Instead , he had provoked a fight , together with his sons . The court also found that while the applicant had admitted to stabbing Š.A. several times in the back , he and the other CARDINAL defendants had not addressed the fact that the injured parties had sustained other stab wounds too . Moreover , the court noted that none of the witnesses had testified that the applicant had lain on the floor and been kicked by the other men . The court found that since the defendants had been prepared for a fight in advance the injured parties should be believed when they stated that they had in fact been attacked and that they had responded by fighting back . It considered the injured parties’ description of how they had obtained the wounds to be persuasive . Having regard to the fact that the fight was of short duration , the court found that the defendants had pulled their knives out quickly and had quickly “ finished with ” the injured parties . The court further found that as the victims had sustained CARDINAL stab wounds altogether , it was plausible that the applicant had not been the only assailant , but that all CARDINAL defendants had inflicted them . Finally , the court dismissed the applicant ’s argument that he had pulled the knife out after being attacked by CARDINAL people as “ unrealistic ” .

In the judgment the court also explained the reasons for reading out GPE and Še . A. ’s statements . It noted that the CARDINAL witnesses had not attended the hearing , despite being properly summoned , and that counsel for the defendants had been offered the possibility to attend their questioning during the investigation .

The applicant appealed to ORG , complaining , inter alia , that the first - instance court had violated his defence rights by relying on the record of the testimony that GPE and Še . A. had given during the investigation .

On DATE the higher court dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . As regards the applicant ’s alleged inability to cross - examine GPE and Še . A. at the trial , the higher court considered that the applicant had had an opportunity to question the witnesses during the investigation . It noted that counsel for the applicant had been informed about the hearing with the investigating judge , as confirmed by an acknowledgment of receipt , but had failed to attend it . According to the higher court , the defence had been aware of the notice of the possibility to participate in the questioning of witnesses during the investigation but had consciously disregarded it . Hence , it had accepted the risk that the witnesses would not be available for questioning at the trial . Moreover , the higher court considered that the applicant had failed to comply with paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as he had not substantiated in what way his inability to question the CARDINAL witnesses at the trial had undermined the legality of the judgment .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The court confirmed that the first - instance court had correctly applied CARDINAL of LAW by reading out the testimony given by GPE and Še . A. during the investigation as the witnesses , who were foreigners , had been duly summoned to appear before the court but had refused to attend . ORG further found that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provided that the investigating judge should have sent the request to attend the questioning directly to the defendants as well as to counsel . However , according to ORG , the applicant had failed to explain how that error on the part of the investigating judge had affected the legality of the impugned judgment . In ORG opinion , the error could only have affected the legality of the judgment if the first - instance court had relied on the testimony of GPE and Še . A. to a decisive extent , which , however , had not been alleged in the case .

The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint . ORG dismissed the complaint on DATE , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .


CASE OF RAMANAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA (No. 2)

No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

The applicant worked as a lawyer in his own private practice .

On DATE PERSON , a convicted prisoner , provided a statement to ORG ( PERSON tyrimų tarnyba , hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) and stated the following . He had heard from other inmates that the deputy head of ORG , PERSON , took bribes to transfer inmates to units with lighter security and that PERSON had mentioned to FAC that it was possible to be released on probation for money . PERSON was questioned by the ORG and stated that in DATE PERSON had asked him to his office and enquired whether he wanted to be released early . PERSON had indicated that he had a friend who could help ORG obtain release on probation and promised to organise a meeting with him . PERSON was asked again DATE by PERSON to go to the latter ’s office , where he met the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . PERSON asked the applicant what he should do in order to obtain release on probation . The applicant stated that ORG would first have to be transferred to a unit with lighter security . FAC asked the applicant how much it would cost him and the applicant replied that ORG [ ORG ] would cost him CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) . After that the applicant indicated several judges that would agree to release PERSON on probation . The applicant also stated that the cost for the same thing in ORG would be approximately LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) but that that was not the final amount . The applicant also mentioned that ORG would have to pay LTL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for the transfer to a unit with lower security . After that conversation PERSON started recording his discussions with PERSON and the applicant using a voice recorder watch which he said he had obtained from other inmates in exchange for cigarettes . Figures mentioned during the other meetings were ORG ( approximately LAW ) for the transfer to another unit and LAW ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for the judges at ORG as that amount could be more easily divided in QUANTITY . PERSON stated that no agreement on legal services had been concluded with the applicant . ORG then contacted an acquaintance , ORG , a former police officer who promised to contact the authorities .

The transcript of the conversation recorded between ORG and the applicant on DATE showed that FAC had around LTL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . The conversation went as follows :

“ The applicant : ‘ ... You understand that the intermediary who will go will also need some , and .. ’

The applicant : ‘ You know , salaries there are [ LTL ] CARDINAL , so you know ... ’

The applicant : ‘ As with [ D ] , when he brought , looked , he went there with those pennies , [ they ] said no , and he did not have any more ... ’

ORG : ‘ Listen , I will be honest , for example I said , the deputy head asked me , asked . I told him that I will have CARDINAL , QUANTITY , so to say CARDINAL litai.’

The applicant : ‘ ... With that , we can easily talk about Kaunas.’

The applicant : ‘ I believe you . I think that it will go through with such an amount of PERSON ”

The applicant told ORG that that amount might not actually be necessary . ORG then told the applicant that ORG would contact him and give him LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The applicant also told ORG that he had won a case against GPE at the ORG and that he had not accepted a bribe in that case . The conversation went as follows :

“ The applicant : ‘ I have already been burnt and only got things straight in GPE . I have won [ in ] ORG against GPE . I previously worked as a prosecutor.’

ORG : ‘ The deputy did not tell me anything.’

The applicant : ‘ I could go back to being a prosecutor . I have won a case against GPE in Strasbourg.’

ORG : ‘ I will ... shake your hand . I can say ... that this seems unreal to me.’

The applicant : ‘ ... The prosecutor with a bribe ... GPE proved that it was a provocation . I proved it in GPE . The proceedings [ there ] took CARDINAL years.’

The applicant : ‘ It was nothing to do with a bribe .... I ... bought an apartment , I asked someone to give me a loan ... He ... was in prison later . He was released ... and became a snitch.’

ORG : ‘ A friend’ .

The applicant : ‘ ... He used to sleep at my mother ’s place ... I do n’t know where he disappeared to . He will not die a natural death . I was not the only one he set up . CARDINAL judges in GPE as well.’

The applicant : ‘ And I won a case in GPE later . ORG rehabilitated me.’

ORG : ‘ Yes.’

The applicant : ‘ The Grand Chamber of CARDINAL judges , the plenary session for criminal cases.’

The applicant : ‘ So look . When will that person come ? So that I know what ... ’

ORG : ‘ So I can call you and simply say one word . DATE , DATE after ORG ”

The applicant asked ORG to make sure that ORG did not tell anyone about the agreement and ORG assured him that ORG would not ask any questions .

On DATE the ORG asked a prosecutor to apply to a pre - trial judge for authorisation for ORG and ORG to offer and give a bribe to FAC and the applicant , in accordance with the provisions of domestic law . The prosecutor also sought permission to make video and/or voice - recordings , to take pictures and to allow CARDINAL officers to monitor ORG and the applicant ’s telephone conversations . The prosecutor also asked FAC on the ORG ’s behalf to authorise covert surveillance of the applicant and PERSON for DATE . The ORG additionally informed the prosecutor that a pre - trial investigation had been opened against FAC and the applicant .

On DATE the FAC authorised taps on the telephones of GPE , GPE , ORG and the applicant and allowed ORG and ORG to perform actions which imitated criminal conduct for DATE , until DATE . ORG was allowed to use various types of telecommunications and electronic network measures .

On DATE PERSON was transferred to a unit with lighter security , based on good behaviour and active participation in the commemoration of DATE of the Defenders of Freedom .

On DATE PERSON was questioned by the ORG . He stated that he had visited ORG earlier in DATE and that the latter had asked him whether he could give ORG to someone . ORG had agreed .

On DATE PERSON and ORG signed documents stating that they were not allowed to incite someone to commit an offence .

On DATE the applicant visited FAC and they talked about the situation of GPE

Later that day ORG called the applicant and agreed to meet him the following day . After the meeting ORG left LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL , given to him by the ORG officers , in the side pocket of the applicant ’s car .

On DATE PERSON called the applicant and asked how matters were proceeding . The applicant said that he would call back , but later asked to call the following DATE . On DATE PERSON called the applicant and said that they would be in touch ; he also asked if the applicant would pay him a visit and the applicant said that he would come at some point in the future . On DATE PERSON called the applicant and said that he had received a character reference from the psychologist and the applicant stated that he would be in touch . PERSON then asked the applicant whether he should call him and the applicant said that he could call when the documents for his transfer to a unit with lighter security were ready . On DATE PERSON called the applicant and informed him that the documents for the court had already been prepared . The applicant stated that he would be in touch and would come to visit V.Š. because they could not talk on the telephone . The applicant said that ORG could call him the following DATE but then decided that DATE would be DATE . On DATE PERSON called PERSON and complained that he could not reach the applicant and asked for help in finding him . On DATE PERSON called a certain PERSON and asked him where the applicant was . PERSON told him that it was not the first time that the applicant had disappeared .

On DATE PERSON called the applicant and said that people were looking for him . The applicant said that ORG ’s case was still in progress . PERSON asked the applicant to come and meet PERSON and the applicant said that he had understood . PERSON then called the applicant , who said he was going to visit him in TIME and that they would talk in person . PERSON again called the applicant DATE and asked whether he should bring the medical certificate to the meeting and the applicant said that he was already in the correctional facility . During the visit they discussed the fact that ORG ’s case had not yet been transferred to court . PERSON asked whether the applicant still had the necessary access [ in ORG ] . The applicant confirmed that he did , that the person concerned was coming back from GPE the following DATE and that without that person the matter could not be settled there . The applicant asked whether PERSON wanted him to participate in a hearing before the court of first instance and ORG said yes . Then they talked about someone else ’s situation and the applicant said that he knew the prosecutor and had bought him . The applicant further said that not every prosecutor could be bought but there were CARDINAL he could buy . ORG said that he had LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and it did not matter for what [ court ] he had to pay . The applicant then asked GPE to speak quieter . He also asked PERSON to call him from time to time . PERSON asked whether he would have to pay something before the hearing in ORG and the applicant said he would not have to give much because the chances were CARDINAL . The applicant also stated that the rest of the money would be held in reserve for GPE [ ORG ] and he would take LTL CARDINAL for ORG [ ORG ] . Later in the same conversation he mentioned ORG ( approximately ORG ) . The applicant asked PERSON to get in touch with his contact person , who was to call and meet the applicant in TIME . After the applicant had left the correctional facility ORG called him and told him that the papers had been sent to the court on DATE . The applicant asked PERSON to call him in TIME . When PERSON called , the applicant told him that the hearing would take place on DATE and that the applicant would participate in it ; he also asked to call him in the evening .

On DATE PERSON called the applicant , who said that he would write him a message . On DATE PERSON called the applicant and they again discussed PERSON ’s situation . On DATE PERSON called the applicant and the applicant said that they would keep in touch after the following DATE , and PERSON was asked to call on DATE after lunch . On DATE PERSON called the applicant , who said that he would not participate in the hearing at the court of first instance regarding ORG ’s release on probation and that if something happened he would inform PERSON On DATE PERSON called the applicant , who confirmed his intention as regards the court of first instance because he did not expect anything good to come out of it . However , he said he would try to talk to someone and PERSON said he would not forget his debt to the applicant . On DATE PERSON called the applicant and informed him that ORG had decided not to release him on probation . The applicant then said that he would visit ORG so he could sign an appeal . On DATE PERSON called PERSON and asked him to ask the applicant about his chances to be released on probation . PERSON called the applicant DATE and asked how matters were proceeding with their client . The applicant said that he would come on DATE and that they would talk then . On DATE the applicant visited ORG , who signed some blank pieces of paper , on which the applicant said he would later write an appeal . PERSON asked whether they would be covered by the amount they had discussed before . The applicant said that he would see , that he had talked with the men in question and asked them to do everything and that they would receive some money . ORG then told the applicant that his contact person would come DATE . After that , they discussed amounts and the applicant told PERSON that the entire sum discussed would be necessary . ORG asked whether they were talking about CARDINAL ] and whether that amount included the applicant ’s share and the applicant said it did . The applicant also said that before that amount would have guaranteed his release on probation PERCENT but that now there was some trouble . The applicant then told ORG to call his contact person and ask him to meet the applicant on DATE . PERSON asked whether his person ( ORG ) should bring CARDINAL ( thousand ) and the applicant confirmed that he should .

On DATE the applicant and ORG met in the applicant ’s car , where LTL MONEY was given to the applicant so that he could secure ORG ’s release on probation . The applicant was arrested by ORG officers immediately afterwards and the money was found in the side door pocket of the applicant ’s car .

V.Š. was questioned additionally on DATE . He stated that PERSON had talked of the applicant as a reliable person who had access to prosecutors and judges . PERSON also showed that PERSON had been the first one to start a conversation about the possibility of ORG being released on probation and that PERSON had told him several times before that “ serious men pay money and are released and do not sit in prison ” ( rimti vyrai moka pinigus ir eina į laisvę , o ne sėdi kalėjime ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed ORG ’s appeal and upheld the first - instance decision not to release him on probation .

On DATE a bill of indictment was drawn up against FAC and the applicant . The applicant was accused of promising to influence FAC and the judges at ORG and ORG with a bribe so that ORG would be released on probation . He was also accused of taking a bribe of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL and LTL CARDINAL respectively on CARDINAL occasions .

On DATE ORG examined an application by the prosecutor to transfer the criminal case from ORG . ORG held that the applicant had stated that he could influence CARDINAL judges in ORG and thus decided to transfer the case to ORG so that the proceedings would be fair .

On DATE the GPE City Third ORG approved an application by ORG to be released on probation . The court held that at that time FAC was serving his sentence in ORG , where he had taken part in the social rehabilitation , legal and social education programmes and had provided information that he would be employed on release .

By a judgment of DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of bribing an intermediary and sentenced him to DATE in prison . The court found it established that ORG had given the applicant LAW and ORG respectively during their meetings on DATE and CARDINAL DATE in return for a promise that the applicant would help in the proceedings for ORG ’s release on probation . The applicant pleaded not guilty and stated that an act of provocation had been organised against him . He also stated that the money he had received was remuneration for his services as ORG ’s lawyer . The applicant said that although no agreement on the provision of legal assistance had been concluded , he had intended to conclude one after the proceedings for ORG ’s release on probation . The applicant refused to provide comments on the recordings and stated that his conversations with ORG were irrelevant because he had only wanted to show that he was working on his case . Those conversations had not been of any consequence as he had not been able to influence FAC or the judges at ORG and ORG ( GPE telefonu ir įrašu su V.[Š. ] nekomentuoja , paaiškindamas , kad visi jo pokalbiai su V.[Š. ] buvo dėl akių , kadangi kažką kalbėti su V.[Š. ] reikėjo , tad nieko nereiškiančiais pokalbiais jis tik siekė parodyti , kad dirba , tačiau tuo jis nesiekė sukelti jokių pasekmių , kadangi negalėjo paveikti nei L.[D. ] , nei Kaišiadorių apylinkės ar ORG apygardos teismo teisėjų ) . ORG stated that he had known ORG since DATE and that ORG had called him and asked for help . When ORG had gone to ORG , ORG had told him that the applicant required money and that ORG doubted that the money would be used in the proper way .

The court ’s conclusions were based on the evidence given by ORG , ORG , FAC and other employees of ORG . It also addressed the secret recordings of the applicant ’s conversations , including those recorded prior to the authorisation for actions imitating criminal conduct . The court held that the transcripts of the conversations between the applicant and ORG showed that the applicant had been the first to indicate the amounts of money to be paid . The applicant ’s statement that he had been going to conclude an agreement on legal services after he had taken LTL CARDINAL were refuted by his conversation with ORG , where the applicant had stated that in case of failure he would keep PERCENT of the money and return the rest . The video - recordings showed that the applicant had not counted the money and that he had indicated to ORG to put it in the side pocket of the car door . That allowed the court to draw the conclusion that the applicant realised that the money was remuneration for his criminal activity . The court further held that ORG ’s testimony , voice and videorecordings showed that the applicant had not been incited to take a bribe and that the criminal conduct simulation model had been applied within the limits prescribed by the court ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . By the same judgment the Kėdainiai District Court found PERSON guilty of abuse of office and forgery , which had allowed ORG to be transferred to a unit with lighter security ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It ordered PERSON to pay a fine of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG MONEY ) . PERSON pleaded guilty , but stated that ORG had named the applicant as a lawyer that could help him obtain release on probation . The court decided to return the recorder watch to ORG

The applicant and PERSON lodged an appeal . The applicant argued that the provisions of domestic law had been applied incorrectly , that FAC and ORG used undue pressure , and that ORG had used unauthorised equipment , the recorder watch , which he had not been allowed to have in prison . The applicant asked the appellate court to question ORG and ask him how he had acquired such a watch in a correctional facility . The applicant also stated that PERSON had overseen matters relating to ORG ’s transfer to a unit with lighter security and that there was no evidence that he had tried to bribe PERSON The applicant also stated that he had never named any specific person in the courts whom he would have bribed because he had not intended to perform such an act . He had only talked to GPE about the outcome of the proceedings for release on probation because ORG had called him constantly .

On DATE ORG approved an application by the prosecutor to transfer the case to ORG from ORG for examination on appeal in order to have a fair trial .

ORG held an oral hearing where several witnesses , including ORG , had been questioned . On DATE ORG held that ORG had purchased the watch for his personal use and that the provisions of domestic law did not directly prohibit the use of such equipment in prison . The court also held that the initial contact between ORG and the applicant had been arranged by PERSON , that FAC had not known the applicant beforehand and had not had any motive to incite him to commit a crime . The court also found that no agreement on the provision of legal services had been concluded between the applicant and ORG and that the applicant ’s argument that he had intended to conclude one later had been dismissed as an attempt to improve his situation . On the basis of the audio - recordings , the court also observed that the applicant had been the first to say that he could settle the matter for money . The court also found that there had been no incitement and that the authorities had not put any active pressure on the applicant to commit an offence . On the contrary , the applicant had incited GPE to give him an amount that would be sufficient for himself , an intermediary and CARDINAL court judges . The court also held that at the time the offence had been committed , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provided for CARDINAL alternative sentences for bribery of an intermediary : arrest or imprisonment for DATE . On DATE LAW had been amended and the applicant ’s offence had then satisfied the requirements of LAW , which provided for various sentences : a fine , arrest or imprisonment for DATE . As the provision in force provided for a more lenient sentence , the court decided to impose a fine of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The court dismissed PERSON ’s appeal by the same judgment .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . He again argued that he had been incited to commit an offence , that ORG , as a convicted prisoner , was not allowed to have recording equipment , that he had been provided with that equipment by the ORG , and that the transcripts of the recordings should not have been used as evidence against him in the case . The applicant also alleged that the LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been remuneration for his legal services and that he had not actually taken the LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL from ORG , who had simply left the money in his car . The applicant further complained that the court of first instance had not even assessed whether the evidence had been lawfully collected . The appellate court , in turn , had approved evidence that had been gathered unlawfully and had misinterpreted domestic law . The applicant also argued that ORG ’s testimony had contradicted itself : it was not clear who had informed the ORG about the alleged crime .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law . The court held that the pre - trial investigation had been opened on DATE upon the request of ORG with his testimony , PERSON had given the authorities his voice - recording watch , where he had recorded his conversations with PERSON and the applicant . The court held that convicted prisoners who used voice recorders breached internal prison regulations , but that did not mean that officers who carried out a pretrial investigation and obtained information from such a voice recorder acted unlawfully . The court also held that the finding of the applicant ’s guilt had not been based solely on the evidence obtained from ORG ’s watch . The court observed that PERSON had suggested the applicant as a lawyer because he knew the prosecutors and judges dealing with ORG ’s case , while PERSON had not incited the applicant to take bribes . By the same judgment ORG left an appeal on points of law by PERSON unexamined because therein he had raised arguments that had not been raised before the appellate court .

On DATE ORG examined an application by the applicant to reopen the proceedings . It decided not to do so , but reduced the fine to LTL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .