Lithuania did not ensure an impartial trial for former member of the Seimas A.Sacharuks, ECHR announced – Respublika.lt

The former MP was convicted for voting 13 times for his then colleague Linas Karalais with his Seimas member’s card. For these criminal acts in 2016 The Court of Appeal of Lithuania awarded A. Sacharuk 1,000. A fine of 882 euros. A. Sacharuk’s case was examined several times in courts of several instances, he was first acquitted, then he was convicted.

The convicted person complained to the ECtHR that the principle of court impartiality was violated in his case because the same judge of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, DB, heard his case twice – the first time in 2016. and for the second time in 2018, when the applicant’s cassation appeal against the guilty verdict was examined.

The ECtHR emphasized that the mere fact that Judge DB was part of the LAT panel that examined the applicant’s criminal case twice does not give rise to reasonable doubts about the court’s bias, but the assessment changes in cases where the previous court decision contains conclusions related to the qualification and guilt of the accused’s actions, which may determine the subsequent decision.

The ECtHR thoroughly evaluated both rulings of the LAT, pointed out that in the first ruling the LAT also spoke about the substance of the charges against the applicant and the guilt itself, clearly indicated which person’s case is under consideration, and the same language was used in the second ruling.

The court decided that LAT in 2016 December 20 the ruling imposed the qualification of the applicant’s actions and the assessment of guilt, stating that falsification of documents entails criminal liability.

After evaluating both LAT rulings, the ECtHR concluded that Judge DB may have had a preconceived notion of the applicant’s guilt.

“Therefore, his fears about the bias of the LAT panel that re-examined the case were objectively justified,” the ECtHR declared.

A. Sacharuk was not awarded non-pecuniary damage because, according to the ECHR, the finding of the violation itself is sufficient to compensate the applicant for non-pecuniary damage.

Evaluating the applicant’s complaint about illegal conviction, the ECtHR first of all emphasized that starting a pre-trial investigation after the applicant’s term as a member of the Seimas was not only the prosecutor’s right, but also an obligation, therefore the applicant’s prosecution did not violate the Convention.

Assessing the applicant’s complaint that voting in the Seimas instead of another member of the Seimas was a “tradition”, so he could not foresee that he would be convicted for it, the ECtHR agreed with the conclusions and observations of the national courts that the court must be guided by the letter of the law, and not “acts that are contrary to the law or by precedents”, so the applicant, a former police commissioner and lawyer, must have understood that his intentional actions could lead to criminal liability.

The court decided that the applicant was sentenced according to a reasonable interpretation of Article 228, Part 1 and Article 302, Part 1 of the Criminal Code, compatible with the essence of the crime, despite the fact that the concept of “great non-pecuniary damage to the state” was applied to the applicant for the first time.

The court, having taken into account all the circumstances of the case (great public interest in the events, public and legal community indignation and fierce criticism of the Seimas decision not to revoke the applicant’s immunity) and the reasonable arguments of the national courts, decided that it could not state that the law or the practice of the national courts, which did not allow the applicant to act in his own way, were unclear.