The lawyer R. Burda, who communicated with the media controlled by the Kremlin, failed to dispute the conclusion of the VSD about the threat posed to Lithuania

On Wednesday, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania upheld the verdict of the court of first instance, it is final and cannot be appealed.

R. Burda Eltai said that he will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.

“There will definitely be an appeal to the ECHR. This decision once again confirms that truth and justice exist in different dimensions in Lithuania. Lithuania has already lost one case at the ECtHR regarding the suspect’s right to defend himself in public space. In my case, I, as a lawyer, am accused of defending the defendants in the January 13 case in public,” R. Burda told Elta.

The lawyer said that in 2022 the adopted decision of the VSD must be annulled because it is unfounded, wrong, illegal, intolerable.

The chairman of the Lithuanian Bar Council, Mindaugas Kukaitis Eltai, said that the situation will be evaluated at the meeting of the Bar Council to be held in May.

“The court’s decision was not known, once we receive it, we will not ignore it, we will assess this situation,” M. Kukaitis told Elta.

In the January 13 case, R. Burda represented Russian citizens Yurii Melis, who was in one of the tanks, Soviet units in 1991. during a TV prank in January, and former KGB officer Mikhail Golovatov. After serving a 9-year sentence, J. Melis returned to Russia last year, and M. Golovatov, former commander of the Russian special purpose “Alfa” squad, who led the “Alfa” group, stormed the Vilnius TV tower and radio and television buildings in Vilnius, in the January 13 case of Lithuania was sentenced to prison in absentia by the courts and died two years ago.

The lawyer who wanted to buy a weapon was checked by the VSD

R. Burda got into trouble with the authorities when he applied to the Vilnius County Police for a permit for a firearm. According to the law, upon receiving a request, the police authorities carry out checks to determine whether persons applying for permits to purchase weapons, permits to store or carry permits to carry weapons of categories A, B, C are not subject to the restrictions established by the law.

Weapons may not be purchased and possessed by a natural person applying for a permit, about whom VSD has information that he may pose or pose a threat to state security. The VSD transmits these data to the police agency, which, based on the results of the inspection (after evaluating the received data), makes a decision to issue a permit or not to issue it on the grounds established by law.

VSD, in response to the request of the Chief Police Commissariat of Vilnius County, in 2022. March 29 provided unclassified information in writing. It stated that “R. Burda cooperates with Kremlin-controlled media. In an interview with these media, R. Burda tries to legally justify the historical narratives used by Russia against Lithuania, related to the occupation of Lithuania in 1940, the legal status of Lithuania after 1990. March 1 Promulgation of the act of restoration of independence, the legal status of the actions of the USSR army and OMON in 1991. during the events of January and aspects of the application of criminal laws in the January 13th case. (…) After evaluating the information, it was established that R. Burda’s activities may pose a threat to state security.”

In addition, VSD said that it also has classified information, which it cannot provide to the lawyer.

The Vilnius District Administrative Court, which examined R. Burda’s dispute with the VSD in 2022, found that the 2019 assessment of threats to national security stated that the Kremlin’s ruling elite uses Russia’s information policy directed against foreign countries, including Lithuania, as an instrument of influence formation. Persons with the citizenship of the Republic of Lithuania who communicate with the Russian media are also used for the development of this instrument, this is also stated in the 2022 report on the assessment of threats to national security of the joint VSD and the Second Department of Operational Services.

The court concluded that from VSD 2022 May 9 the lawyer of the content of the decision was able to understand its essence and content, because it indicates the legal acts, in accordance with which the VSD submitted information to the police institution. The court that assessed the VSD in 2022 May 9 the content of the decision, the arguments of the applicant’s complaint and the VSD’s response to the complaint, after analyzing the case data and legal regulation, concluded that there is no legal basis to recognize that the disputed decision violated the requirements of legal acts, that it is not based on the norms of legal acts or that its content does not meet the requirements of legal norms . According to the court’s assessment, VSD in 2022 May 9 the decision meets the requirements set out in the Law on Public Administration.

The Vilnius District Administrative Court noted that the establishment of facts with legal significance is not foreseen in the administrative process, the applicant’s aspiration to deny information about him (due to a threat to state security) is not related to the performance of public administration functions. In the court’s opinion, such a claim cannot be examined in an administrative court, but in a court of general competence.

In a complaint to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, R. Burda stated that if he had not applied for the issuance of a “B” category firearm permit, he would not have known that he was included in the list of persons “threatening the security of the state”.

“Therefore, it is not reasonable to claim that the VSD protected the state from a citizen of the Republic of Lithuania who wanted to arm himself, and because of this, a dispute arose in the case under consideration. In the case under consideration, the main dispute arose regarding the recognition or non-recognition of the applicant, as a lawyer, as a threat to state security due to his professional activities. The court, without commenting on the wording of the VSD in relation to the applicant, indirectly admits that the lawyer’s procedural activities in the criminal process may pose a threat to state security,” writes R. Burda in the complaint.

VSD asked the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania to uphold the decision of the court of first instance, because it is reasonable and legal, the court properly determined the limits of the trial, objectively and comprehensively examined the evidence in the case, determined legally significant circumstances, correctly applied the legal norms, and the applicant’s appeal is unfounded, because it is based on assumptions, unsubstantiated statements about the subject matter of the case, it does not specify and is not substantiated a single basis for annulment of the decision of the first instance court.

R. Burda, who is now 60 years old, is a doctor of social sciences, previously worked in the Special Investigation Service (STT), was a former member of the Central Election Commission, 1990-1994. In the Investigation Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, in the Investigation Board of the Vilnius Chief Police Commissariat, he held the position of interrogator of particularly important cases.

He has been practicing law since 2015.