Published on 23 January 2023

SECOND SECTION

Application no. 10495/21 Rolandas BORISOVAS against Lithuania lodged on 4 February 2021 communicated on 6 January 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns length of pre-trial detention.

On 17 April 2018 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of smuggling of a large amount of drugs, unlawful possession of weapons, money laundering and assault; those crimes had been committed by an organised criminal group and he was suspected of being its leader. His detention on remand was extended regularly, on the grounds that: (1) he might abscond, in view of the gravity of the crimes of which he was suspected and his connections in foreign countries; (2) he might seek to interfere with the criminal proceedings, particularly in view of the fact that the criminal organisation he was suspected to lead functioned on the basis of strict hierarchy and anyone who had disobeyed it had been strictly punished; and (3) he might commit further crimes because it was suspected that criminal activity was his main source of income and he had two previous convictions. The courts also noted that the criminal case was very complex and of a large scale because it concerned criminal activity allegedly committed in several different countries and over a long period of time, and it involved more than fifty suspects.

On 3 May 2021 the Kaunas Regional Court replaced the applicant’s detention with house arrest. He was prohibited from leaving his home between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., unless he needed to participate in the criminal proceedings, see a doctor, go to work, or take care of his father who was ill. He was also prohibited from leaving the country and was ordered to pay bail of 30,000 euros.

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his pre-trial detention (more than three years) was excessive.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

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), and the cases cited therein)? In particular, did the domestic authorities display special diligence in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the applicant during the period of his detention on remand (compare Lisovskij v. Lithuania , no. 36249/14, §§ 78-80, 2 May 2017)?