Published on 4 July 2022

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 6406/21 M.G. against Lithuania lodged on 16 January 2021 communicated on 15 June 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns allegedly ineffective criminal proceedings against the person who assaulted the applicant.

In August 2014, when the applicant was 17 years old, his aunt’s boyfriend R.V. physically assaulted him and attempted to rape him at his home, but the applicant managed to call the police. A medical examination found that the applicant had sustained minor injuries and that he suffered from post ‑ traumatic stress disorder. By the final court decision, adopted on 16 July 2020, R.V. was convicted of an attempted sexual assault of a minor and of causing him a minor bodily injury. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, which was suspended for three years, and ordered to pay 1,000 euros (EUR) to a State fund for supporting victims of crime. The applicant was awarded EUR 6,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

When determining the sentence to be given to R.V., the Kaunas Regional Court held, inter alia , that giving him a suspended sentence was justified in view of “the circumstances in which the criminal offence had been committed, the convicted person’s character, as well as the particularly lengthy proceedings in the case”. The court considered that the aims of the punishment would be achieved without R.V. actually serving the sentence in prison. That conclusion was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court.

The applicant complains that the criminal proceedings against R.V. were too long and that the sentence given to him was too lenient. He invokes Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Did the State fulfil its positive obligations under Article 3 of the Convention to carry out an effective criminal investigation into the assault against the applicant (see R.B. v. Estonia , no. 22597/16, §§ 78-84, 22 June 2021, and the cases cited therein)? In particular:

(a) Did the proceedings comply with the requirement of promptness and reasonable expedition (see X and Others v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 22457/16, § 188, 2 February 2021, and the cases cited therein)?

(b) Was there a manifest disproportion between the gravity of the acts committed against the applicant and the punishment imposed on R.V. (see Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no. 22978/05, § 123, ECHR 2010, and Zontul v. Greece , no. 12294/07, §§ 106-08, 17 January 2012, and the cases cited therein)?