Communicated on 31 May 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no 62663/13 Anton Å ÄŒENSNOVIÄŒIUS against Lithuania lodged on 25 September 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Anton Ščensnovičius , is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1980 and is detained in Luki škės Remand Prison .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. The applicant ’ s detention on remand

On 23 February 2010 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of participating in a criminal organisation that possessed and traded firearms and that possessed large amounts of narcotic and psychotropic substances with the intention to disseminate them.

On 24 February 2010 the Vilnius City District Court authorised the applicant ’ s detention on remand for three months, which was renewed by decisions of Vilnius District Court and Vilnius Regional Court multiple times.

On 21 August 2013 the Vilnius Regional Court once again renewed the applicant ’ s detention on remand for three months. The court held that the applicant was convicted for crimes twice before and that he did not have a job but that the nature of his crimes allowed the court to believe that he had obtained money from criminal activities. Moreover, the applicant himself indicated that he used to spend a lot of time in Russia for work, therefore there was a risk that he might abscond or attempt to commit new crimes. The court further held that the criminal case consisted of 116 files and there were 32 suspects and decided to renew the applicant ’ s detention for a further three months as from 24 August 2013.

The applicant appealed and on 5 September 2013 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Vilnius Regional Court. It held that there was a risk that the applicant might abscond or commit new crimes and that he was suspected of having committed three crimes. The court observed that the applicant had connections abroad, that he was previously convicted, that he did not have strong social ties and decided that his detention on remand was an adequate and proportionate measure.

The Court does not have further information about the criminal case against the applicant.

2. The applicant ’ s conditions of detention

From 24 February 2010 until 17 February 2014 the applicant was held at Luki Å¡kÄ—s R emand Prison. He alleged that the cells were overcrowded, cold and humid in winter and hot in summer, that the toilet was not separated from the living space, the cells were dark and caused the applicant distress.

(a) Administrative proceedings for damages for the period of 24 February 2010 – 13 May 2013

The applicant lodged a claim before the domestic courts and asked that he be awarded 100,000 Lithuanian litai ( LTL, approximately 28,962 euros (EUR)) in non-pecuniary damages for detention in inadequate conditions.

On 23 September 2013 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court held that for 1,159 days the applicant been held in overcrowded cells and awarded him with LTL 5,795 (approximately EUR 1,678) in compensation.

The applicant appealed and on 18 August 2014 the Supreme Administrative Court increased the amount of compensation to LTL 11,700 (approximately EUR 3,389).

(b) Administrative proceedings for damages for the period of 14 May 2013 – 17 February 2014

The applicant lodged a claim before the domestic courts and asked that he be awarded LTL 50,000 (approximately EUR 14,481) in non-pecuniary damages for detention in inadequate conditions from 24 February 2010 to 17 February 2014.

On 9 January 2015 the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court held that the applicant had already received compensation for the period from 24 February 2010 to 13 May 2013, and decided to terminate the administrative case for this part. As regards the remaining period, the court considered that for 248 days the applicant was held in overcrowded cells and awarded him with approximately EUR 1,437 in compensation.

The applicant appealed and on 6 October 2015 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of Vilnius Regional Administrative Court of 9 January 2015.

B. Relevant domestic law

Article 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter – “the CCP”) provides that restrictive measures can be applied in order to ensure that the suspect, the accused or the convicted person participates in the proceedings, to prevent interference with the pre-trial investigation or with the examination of the case before the court, or with the execution of the sentence, and to prevent the committing of further criminal acts.

Article 122 § 1 of the CCP permits detention on remand when there is a well-founded belief that the suspect may flee, interfere with the investigation, or commit further criminal acts.

Article 122 § 2 of the CCP provides that where there is a reasonable suspicion that a suspect might flee, detention may be ordered after taking into account his or her marital status, permanent place of residence, employment status, state of health, prior convictions, connections abroad, and other relevant circumstances.

Article 122 § 7 of the CCP states that detention on remand may be ordered only when more lenient remand measures would be insufficient to achieve the objectives listed in Article 119 of the CCP.

Article 127 § 2 of the CCP provides that the maximum length of detention on remand during the pre-trial investigation is nine months, eighteen months in particularly complex or large-scale cases or cases concerning organised criminal groups. The CCP does not prescribe the maximum length of detention after the pre-trial investigation has been completed and the case had been transferred to the court for examination on the merits.

Article 6.250 § 1 of the Civil Code provides that non-pecuniary damage is a person ’ s suffering, emotional experiences, inconveniences, mental shock, emotional distress, humiliation, deterioration of reputation, diminution of possibilities to associate with others, etc., evaluated by a court in terms of money. Article 6.250 § 2 of the Civil Code provides that non ‑ pecuniary damage is compensated only in cases provided for by law. Non-pecuniary damage has to be compensated in all cases where it is incurred due to crime, health impairment or deprivation of life, as well as in other cases provided for by law. The courts have to take into consideration the consequences of such damage sustained, the gravity of the fault of the person by whom the damage is caused, his financial status, the amount of pecuniary damage sustained by the aggrieved person, and any other circumstances of importance for the case, as well as the criteria of good faith, justice and reasonableness in assessing the amount of non-pecuniary damage.

Article 6.271 § 1 of the Civil Code provides that damage resulting either from unlawful conviction, unlawful arrest as a suppressive measure, unlawful detention, the application of unlawful procedural measures in enforcement proceedings, or the unlawful imposition of an administrative penalty (arrest) shall give rise to full compensation by the State, irrespective of the fault of the preliminary investigation officials, prosecution officials or courts.

Pursuant to Article 15 § 1 (3) of the Law on Administrative Proceedings, administrative courts decide cases concerning damage caused by unlawful acts of public authorities, as provided for in Article 6.271 of the Civil Code.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand was excessive. He also complains under Article 3 of the Convention about degrading conditions as regards his detention.

QUESTIONS to the parties

1. Was the length of the applicant ’ s detention on remand in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07 , §§ 84-91, ECHR 2016 (extracts) ? In particular:

a) Did the grounds cited by the judicial authorities continued to justify the deprivation of liberty ( see Gusinskiy v. Russia , no. 70276/01, § 53, ECHR 2004 ‑ IV, and the cases cited therein) ?

b) Were those grounds relevant and sufficient?

c) Did the competent domestic authorities display special diligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant during the period of his detention on remand (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV; Suslov v. Russia , no. 2366/07 , § 93, 29 May 2012 )?

2. Can the applicant still be considered a victim of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in view of the decisions by the domestic courts finding violations of his rights (see Mironovas and Others v. Lithuania , nos. 40828/12, 29292/12, 69598/12, 4 0163/13, 66281/13, 70048/13 and 70065/13 , §§ 84-85 and 96, 8 December 2015) and awarding him compensation ?

3. Has the applicant been subjected to degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention due to his conditions of detention since 24 February 2010 (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13 , §§ 96-101, ECHR 2016)?

The parties are requested to inform the Court about any further developments regarding the applicant ’ s situation, in particular, whether the applicant has been convicted, and, if so, where he serves his sentence, and, if so, to provide the relevant decisions of the domestic courts.

The Government is requested to provide documents concerning the prolongation of the applicant ’ s detention on remand.