CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 2024

.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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 16 September 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 39777/23 Arvydas DAUGĖLA against Lithuania lodged on 3 November 2023 communicated on 27 August 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint that he had not had a fair trial before the Supreme Court. The applicant was a judge of the Supreme Court. On 1   June 2021 the applicant was stopped by the police while driving a car, the police tested the applicant for sobriety, and found him being intoxicated. By a judgment of 26   April 2022, in criminal proceedings, the Kaunas Regional Court found the applicant guilty of drunk driving, imposed on him a fine of 5,000 euros, barred him from driving for one year and six months, and ordered the confiscation of the applicant’s car. On 9   November 2022 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court. He argued that there had been a breach of procedural and substantive criminal law. Among others, he stated that the police officers had delayed taking him to a medical facility. As a result, although at the medical facility the alcohol level in his blood was lower, which would have led to administrative rather than criminal liability, the results of that test had not been taken into account. He also argued that the confiscation of his car had been disproportionate. On 2   May 2023 the Supreme Court informed the applicant, in writing, that his appeal on points of law would be examined at an oral hearing on 6 June 2023, at 9.00 a.m. The applicant arrived in Vilnius from Klaipėda on 5   June 2023, that night he stayed at a hotel. In the morning of 6   June 2023, at 8.11 a.m. the applicant sent an email to the Supreme Court, wherein he wrote having arrived in Vilnius last night, that during the night his blood pressure had significantly risen, and that therefore he would be unable to take part in the Supreme Court’s hearing and to defend himself. The applicant asked the Supreme Court to postpone the hearing to the following day; the applicant expected to stay at the hotel and to search for possibilities to get his health situation in order. The Supreme Court nevertheless held the oral hearing on 6   June 2023, in which the prosecutor took part. On 6   June 2023, at 10.42 a.m. news portal lrt.lt published an article to the effect that the Supreme Court’s chamber had observed that the applicant had not provided any medical documents as to his state of health and had decided the case in the applicant’s absence. The article also noted that the prosecutor had pleaded, during the Supreme Court’s hearing, that substantive and procedural criminal law had been correctly applied in the applicant’s case. The prosecutor pleaded that the evidence against the applicant had been gathered lawfully and that the rules for testing the alcohol level in the blood had been properly followed. The Supreme Court’s ruling, dismissing the applicant’s appeal on points of law, was pronounced on 4   July 2023. Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complains that he did not have a fair trial on account of the fact that the Supreme Court, knowing that he had not had a lawyer to represent him at the Supreme Court’s hearing, decided his appeal on points of law in his absence. The applicant points out that the Supreme Court had been informed about the sudden deterioration of the applicant’s medical condition, as well as about the applicant’s wish to take part in person in the oral hearing, wherein the prosecutor took part and made arguments on the applicant’s appeal on points of law. That notwithstanding, the Supreme Court refused to postpone the hearing, thus denying the applicant a right to be heard. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AND REQUEST FOR INFORMATION Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge(s) against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see   Sejdovic v. Italy [GC], no.   56581/00, §   81 in limine , ECHR 2006-II)?   In particular, was the principle of equality of arms respected (see Steel and Morris v. the United Kingdom , no.   68416/01, §   59, ECHR 2005-II, and Batsanina v. Russia , no. 3932/02, §   22, 26   May 2009, with further references)?   The parties are requested to provide the Court with a copy of the transcript of the Supreme Court’s hearing of 6   June 2023 in the applicant’s case.