Published on 11 April 2022

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 25859/20 Marija KAMINSKIENÄ– against Lithuania lodged on 26 June 2020 communicated on 25 March 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns impartiality of a judge. The applicant is a shareholder of company A., which is one of the largest companies in Lithuania. She and some other minority shareholders instituted civil proceedings against the company, contesting some decisions taken by the shareholders’ meeting. In particular, they claimed that the shareholders’ meeting had incorrectly determined the price of the company’s shares. The applicant claimed that that decision had caused her damages of approximately 38,000,000 euros. On 5 March 2018 the first instance court, and on 1 October 2019 the appellate court dismissed the claim. During the court proceedings at first-instance and appellate courts company A. was represented by lawyer K.B., a senior associate at the law firm wherein another lawyer, G.B. was the founding partner.

By a ruling of 8 January 2020, the Supreme Court’s three-judge selection panel refused to accept the applicant’s appeal on points of law for examination, as raising no important legal issues.

The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the three-judge selection panel of the Supreme Court, which refused to accept her appeal on points of law, was not impartial given that Judge D.Š. sat in its composition. That judge had in 2018 withdrawn from a case in civil proceedings against company A., wherein lawyer G.B. had been a third party, on the grounds that D.Š. and G.B. had studied together and maintained personal contact. In 2019 Judge D.Š. again withdrew from the case where the applicant was the plaintiff, and company A. was the defendant.

In support of her complaint regarding lack of court’s impartiality, the applicant submits that G.B. had a direct interest in her case against company A. for the following reasons: 1) G.B. was a board member of company A.; 2) as of 2015 company A. had a general agreement for legal representation in all cases with the law firm of which G.B. was the founding partner; 3) in the proceedings in question company A. was represented by lawyer K.B. practising in the same law firm where G.B. was the founding partner; G.B. having re-delegated his powers to represent company A. to K.B. 4) some of the third parties – major shareholders of company A. – in the case were personally represented by G.B.

The applicant also specifies that in Lithuania the cassation appeal procedure operates in such a way that the civil litigants are not informed in advance who will sit on the selection panel, where proceedings are in writing. Besides, the applicant had become aware of the composition of the selection panel, which included Judge D.Š. who had not recused himself, after it was already too late to submit another appeal on points of law, given that the three-month time limit to lodge it, after the appellate court’s decision, had expired.

Under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant thus submits that her right to access to the Supreme Court was completely restricted because the matter of admission of her cassation appeal was resolved by a biased selection panel of the Supreme Court.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Was the selection panel of the Supreme Court which refused to accept the applicant’s appeals on points of law on 8 January 2020 impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the participation of Judge D.Å . in that panel (see Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, §§ 73-78, ECHR 2015, and the cases cited therein; see also DainelienÄ— v. Lithuania [Committee], no. 23532/14, §§ 48 ‑ 50, 16 October 2018)?

Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?