After arriving at the call, the policeman beat the man who called the officers falsely

In the case, the victim ET was awarded EUR 3,000 in non-pecuniary damages from the state.

The case was examined based on the cassation complaints of the convicted MR’s defense attorney, the victim’s ET representative and the prosecutor. Addressing the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the defense counsel of the convicted MR asked to cancel the guilty verdict of the court of appeal and to keep the acquittal of the court of first instance valid.

The representative of the victim asked to increase the non-pecuniary damage compensation awarded to the victim by the ET to 30,000 euros, the prosecutor requested to award non-pecuniary damage compensation directly from the convicted MR, and not from the state.

After examining the case, the panel of judges rejected the cassation appeal of the convicted MR’s defender on the grounds that the appellate court, by annulling the acquittal of the first instance court and accepting MR’s indictment, did not make any errors in the assessment of evidence and properly applied the criminal law.

The claims in the cassation appeal of the convicted defender that MR used physical violence against ET because he resisted and posed a risk to MR’s health are unfounded, as no circumstances were established in the case that would have required MR to immediately use physical violence against ET

Rejecting the cassation appeal of the ET representative of the victim, the panel of judges concluded that the amount of non-pecuniary damage awarded to the victim is not too low. In this case, unlike the European Court of Human Rights cases cited by the victim’s representative, an effective pre-trial investigation was conducted regarding the behavior of the police officer MR and a court verdict was issued, by which MR was convicted for the committed criminal acts.

In addition, the panel of judges pointed out that the victim ET’s behavior during the incident was not impeccable, because he called the police officers without reason, and when they arrived, he communicated with them by inserting offensive swear words, etc.

Speaking on the prosecutor’s cassation appeal, the panel of judges noted that, according to Article 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania (BPK), a civil action can be awarded also from the organizations materially responsible for the actions of the perpetrator, and therefore from the State of Lithuania. In the case, MR is convicted for having committed a criminal act by abusing, exceeding the powers granted to him as a civil servant, therefore, the state is responsible for ensuring that civil servants are only persons with suitable personal characteristics and properly trained to perform official functions.

It is also important that persons who have suffered damage due to the criminal actions of civil servants, committed while using their powers as civil servants, receive effective compensation for the damage suffered, and such a situation is ensured when the state is ordered to compensate the damage. As a result, the appellate court did not commit any fundamental violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure when awarding compensation to the state of Lithuania for the civil action filed by the victim.

This ruling of the Supreme Court of Lithuania is final and cannot be appealed.

The Supreme Court of Lithuania is the only court of cassation to review the decisions of courts of general competence. The main purpose of the Court of Cassation is to ensure the uniform practice of courts of general competence in the state. Based on the laws regulating the process, the court of cassation, without going beyond the limits of the cassation appeal, checks the appealed decisions from the aspect of application of the law.