CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 June 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 1901/21 Vidmantas JUŠKELIS against Lithuania lodged on 21 December 2020 communicated on 16 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the State’s procedural obligations when enforcing a sentence imposed in the context of the breach of right to life, under Article   2 of the Convention, and the right to a fair hearing, under Article   6 §   1 thereof. In 2015 V.M. was convicted and sentenced to ten years of imprisonment for having violently murdered the applicant’s wife, she was also the mother of their two children. In 2020 the parole commission proposed that V.M. be released on parole, yet the Vilnius City District Court refused to grant the commission’s proposal as unfounded. The applicant, who in those proceedings also acted on behalf of his two children, was notified about the first instance court proceedings. He objected to V.M.’s release on parole referring to V.M. having categorically denied his guilt, severity of the crime, the fact that by then V.M. had served only minor part – four years and two months – of his sentence, and the fact that even though compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage had been awarded from V.M., the latter essentially had not compensated that damage. The first instance court took into account the applicant’s arguments, holding that V.M. had failed to critically evaluate his crime and its consequences. He had also had disciplinary violations in prison and had had repaid only around 1,500 euros (EUR) in compensation to the three victims of his crime, whereas when sentencing V.M. a compensation in the sum of approximately EUR   36,000 had been awarded for those victims. On appeal by V.M., on 25   February 2020 the Vilnius Regional Court overturned the first instance court’s decision and, holding that V.M. deserved the regional court’s trust, decided that V.M. be released on parole. V.M. was ordered, among other, to continue paying compensation to the victims and to repay them at least EUR   10,000 during the period of his release on parole. The Vilnius Regional Court also noted that no written responses or objections to V.M.’s appeal had been received, and that the regional court’s decision was final. The applicant appealed, submitting that his right to respond to V.M.’s appeal had been denied. The applicant likewise contested the merits of the regional court’s decision. By a ruling of 22   July 2020 the Vilnius Regional Court refused to accept the applicant’s appeal for examination, holding that the domestic law provided neither for the victim’s right to know about the court proceedings where the question of release on parole was being decided, nor for the victim’s right to respond to a convicted person’s appeals. By a final ruling of 26   August 2020 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The Supreme Court held that, under Article 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only the convicted person and the prosecutor had the right to appeal against the court decision concerning release on parole. Referring to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that the Vilnius Regional Court adopted the decision of 25   February 2020 without having informed the applicant and without having given him opportunity to express his position. The applicant refers to international instruments on protection on the rights of the crime victims, such as Article 6 of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council (2012/29/EU) establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, which grants the victims the right to receive information about their case. He also refers to Article   157 § 8 of the Code of Execution of the Sentences, which stipulates that the victim of the crime should be notified about the convicted person’s request to be released on parole and to respond to that request. The applicant points out having availed of that right, and having actively participated in the court proceedings at first instance, where his arguments were taken into account. He finds the Vilnius Regional Court’s position not only illogical, but also unfair and in breach of the right to a fair hearing. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the procedural protection of the right to life (see, mutatis mutandis , Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia , no.   25091/07, §§   269 and 275, 26   April 2011; Kitanovska Stanojkovic and Others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   2319/14, §   32, 13   October 2016; Akelienė v. Lithuania , no. 54917/13, §   85, 16 October 2018; Vanyo Todorov v. Bulgaria , no. 31434/15, §§   42-44, 49 and 65, 21 July 2020, and Smiljanić v. Croatia , no.   35983/14, §§   89-91, 25   March 2021), has the applicant been able to effectively participate in the proceedings concerning V.M.’s release on parole (see also Y. v. Slovenia , no.   41107/10, §   70, ECHR 2015 (extracts) regarding victims’ real and appropriate role in its criminal legal system)? The Court refers, among other, to what the applicant described as his limited participation at the level of the Vilnius Regional Court’s proceedings.   Has there been a violation of procedural limb of Article   2 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? The Court refers to the applicant’s grievance that the Vilnius Regional Court had not notified him about its proceedings and the applicant effectively could not take part in them (see Pavlović and   Others v. Croatia , no.   13274/11, §§   42-45, 2   April 2015, and the case-law cited therein)