CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 2 mai 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFDE2A5 { width:204.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF LISOVSKIJ v. LITHUANIA   (Application no. 36249/14)               JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   2 May 2017       FINAL   02/08/2017   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Lisovskij v. Lithuania, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   András Sajó, President,   Vincent A. De Gaetano,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Egidijus Kūris,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 21 June 2016, 31 January 2017 and   21   March 2017, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the latter date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 36249/14) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Mr Genrik Lisovskij (“the applicant”), on 24 April 2014. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms G. Cimbolienė, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, that the length of his detention on remand had been excessive, contrary to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. 4.     On 16 June 2015 the complaint concerning the length of detention on remand was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. On 30 August 2016 the parties were asked to submit additional observations. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1987 and lives in Vilnius. A.     The applicant’s detention during the pre-trial investigation (from 15   December 2009 to 3 December 2010) 6.     On 11 May 2009 the State criminal police bureau started a pre ‑ trial investigation into allegations that an armed criminal organisation was active in Vilnius Region. It was suspected that the said organisation possessed and distributed large amounts of narcotic and psychotropic substances, and that it was also engaged in other criminal activities, such as violent assaults, unlawful deprivation of liberty and extortion. 7 .     In the context of that investigation, on 15 December 2009 the applicant was arrested near his parents’ apartment in Vilnius. He was questioned and officially notified that he was suspected of participating in a criminal organisation armed with firearms (Article 249 § 2 of the Criminal Code) and possession of a large amount of narcotic and psychotropic substances with the intention to distribute them (Article 260 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code). 8 .     On 16 December 2009 the Vilnius City First District Court authorised the applicant’s detention on remand for three months. The court considered that the available evidence (testimonies of witnesses and other suspects and other data collected by the authorities) was sufficient to hold that the applicant may have committed the crimes of which he was suspected. It held that the applicant might try to abscond because he was suspected of serious and very serious crimes which could lead to life imprisonment, he was unemployed, not enrolled in an educational institution, not married and had no strong social ties. The court also found that the applicant might interfere with the criminal investigation or commit further crimes because the crimes of which he was suspected had been well-organised and not spontaneous. Lastly the court noted that the pre-trial investigation was ongoing (see paragraph 40 below) and the remaining investigative actions had to be carried out urgently, so the applicant’s detention was necessary to ensure the unimpeded course of the investigation. 9 .     The applicant appealed against that decision and asked the court to impose a different restrictive measure. He argued that the allegations against him were unfounded. He also submitted that there was no risk of him absconding because in another criminal case, in which he was accused, he had been prohibited from leaving his home for more than seven days in a row and he was complying with that restriction. The applicant further submitted that in the past he had always complied with similar restrictions of movement which had been imposed on him in other pre ‑ trial investigations. He stated that he had a permanent place of residence with his parents and that he had been taking care of his sick grandmother, so detaining him would negatively affect his family. The applicant also contended that he was young, that he used to work until the deterioration of the economic situation in Lithuania, and that he had no prior convictions, so there were no grounds to find that he might commit further crimes. Lastly the applicant submitted that all the witnesses in the investigation had already been questioned, so there was no possibility for him to interfere with the ongoing investigation. 10.     However, on 12 January 2010 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It firstly noted that when ordering detention on remand, a court was not establishing the applicant’s guilt, and thus the standard of evidence required for detaining him was lower. The Vilnius Regional Court then found that the first-instance court had correctly assessed all the relevant circumstances, and upheld its findings in their entirety. 11 .     On 16 March 2010 the Vilnius City First District Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months. It relied on the same grounds as in its previous decision (see paragraph 8 above). In addition, the court noted that the case against the applicant was complex and of a large scale, and that the investigative actions were being carried out without undue delays (see paragraph 40 below). 12.     The applicant appealed against that decision, submitting essentially the same reasons as in his previous appeal (see paragraph 9 above). However, on 14 April 2010 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court’s findings that the applicant might flee, attempt to interfere with the investigation or commit further crimes, that the criminal case was complex, and that the pre-trial investigation was being carried out with due diligence (see paragraph 40 below). 13.     On 11 June 2010 the Vilnius Regional Court, acting as a court of first instance, extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months. In addition to reiterating the findings of the previous court decisions (see paragraphs 8 and 11 above), it noted that the applicant had a prior conviction and that he was suspected of leading a criminal organisation, so there were grounds to believe that he might commit further crimes. The court also found that the pre-trial investigation concerned more than fifty suspects and that it was being carried out diligently and without undue delays (see paragraph 40 below). 14 .     On 30 June 2010 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It reiterated that there had been sufficient evidence (such as testimonies of witnesses and other suspects, results of eyewitness identification, and other data collected by the authorities) to believe that the applicant might have committed the crimes of which he had been suspected. The Court of Appeal quashed the lower court’s conclusion that the applicant might interfere with the investigation, holding that it was unsubstantiated. However, it accepted that the applicant might abscond because he was suspected of serious and very serious deliberate crimes which could lead to life imprisonment, and because he had no legal source of income or strong social ties. The Court of Appeal also held that the applicant might commit further crimes because he was suspected of having committed multiple crimes while participating in a criminal organisation which, allegedly, had been his main source of income. The Court of Appeal observed that, in accordance with the domestic law, detention on remand could last longer than six months only when the case was especially complex or of a large scale. It found that those two conditions had been met in the applicant’s case: the investigation concerned multiple criminal offences committed in a criminal organisation, there was a large number of suspects, and it was necessary to carry out numerous investigative actions, so the case could be considered especially complex and of a large scale. The Court of Appeal also noted that the pre ‑ trial investigation had been conducted with due diligence: after the last decision to extend the applicant’s detention, the police had questioned additional witnesses and the applicant himself, conducted eyewitness identification, ordered forensic examinations of various objects, and carried out other investigative actions in respect of the other suspects (see paragraph   40 below). Lastly the court held that the applicant’s personal circumstances, such as his age, family situation, or restrictive measures imposed on him in other cases, could not be considered as “having a special priority” ( išimtinai prioritetiniai ) which could “outweigh the public interest” and justify releasing him from detention. 15 .     On 14 September 2010 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months. It relied on essentially the same grounds (see paragraph 14 above), additionally finding that the applicant had connections to foreign countries which could facilitate his absconding. The court also held that the number and nature of the allegations against the applicant indicated that he was dangerous. Lastly it noted that over fifty suspects had been arrested in the case and that numerous investigative actions were still being carried out (see paragraph   40 below). As a result, the Vilnius Regional Court concluded that the applicant’s continuing detention was necessary in order to ensure his participation in the criminal proceedings and the unhindered course of the investigation, as well as to prevent the commission of further crimes. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against that decision. 16 .     On 20 September 2010 the applicant was officially notified that he was suspected of leading a criminal organisation armed with firearms (Article 249 § 3 of the Criminal Code) and possession of a very large amount of narcotic and psychotropic substances with the intention to distribute them (Article 260 § 3 of the Criminal Code). 17 .     On 3 December 2010 the prosecutor charged the applicant with the aforementioned crimes (see paragraph 16 above), and the case was referred to the Vilnius Regional Court for examination on the merits. B.     The applicant’s detention during the examination of the case by the first-instance court until his conviction in separate criminal proceedings (from 3 December 2010 to 22 May 2014) 18 .     On 13 December 2010 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months, reiterating the findings of the previous decisions (see paragraphs 14 and 15 above). It also noted that the criminal organisation in question had been operating for a long time, it had been armed with firearms and had committed numerous well-organised crimes which had allegedly been a source of income for its members. Since the applicant was suspected of leading that organisation and participating in multiple crimes, and since he was unemployed, not enrolled in an educational institution and not married, the court considered that he was “not prone to following socially accepted rules of behaviour” ( nelinkęs laikytis visuomenėje priimtų elgesio normų ir taisyklių ). 19.     On 10 January 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, relying on essentially the same grounds as before (see paragraphs   14, 15 and 18 above). It also underlined that after the case had been referred to the first-instance court for examination on the merits, the law had no longer established the maximum length of detention; however, it had to be compatible with the grounds and procedures provided for by law (see paragraphs 46-51 below). The Court of Appeal held that, in the light of the charges against the applicant, the protection of the public interest in his case outweighed his right to liberty. 20.     In separate criminal proceedings, on 25 February 2011 the Vilnius City Second District Court convicted the applicant of engaging in public violence when using firearms under Article 283 § 2 of the Criminal Code. He was given a suspended prison sentence of two years and one month. On 5   April 2012 the Vilnius Regional Court upheld the conviction. 21.     On 10 March 2011 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months on essentially the same grounds as before (see paragraphs 14, 15 and 18 above). It appears that the applicant did not appeal against that decision. 22.     On 2 June 2011 the prosecutor, on the basis of the information collected during the pre-trial investigation, started a separate pre ‑ trial investigation against the applicant. The second investigation concerned allegations of production of a counterfeit electronic means of payment; fraudulently acquiring another person’s property; unauthorised possession of firearms, ammunition or explosives; destruction of or damage to other person’s property; murder for personal gain; unlawful deprivation of liberty using violence; and violation of public order (Articles 214 § 1, 182 § 1, 253   § 1, 187 § 1, 129 § 2 (9), 146 § 2 and 284 § 1 of the Criminal Code, respectively). On 29 July 2011 the prosecutor issued an indictment against the applicant in respect of those charges and the case was referred to the Vilnius Regional Court for examination on the merits. 23.     The Vilnius Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months on 13 June 2011 and 14 September 2011, relying on essentially the same grounds as before (see paragraphs 14, 15 and 18 above). 24 .     On 14 October 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It reiterated that there was sufficient evidence to believe that he had committed the crimes with which he had been charged, and upheld the lower court’s findings that the applicant might flee. The Court of Appeal emphasised that the applicant had a prior conviction, that he was accused of participating in a criminal organisation and of having a leading role in the commission of multiple crimes, and that there was no information that he had ever had a legal source of income. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal considered that there were sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant might commit further crimes, so his continued detention was necessary. 25.     The Vilnius Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months on 12 December 2011 and 5 March 2012 on essentially the same grounds as before (see paragraphs 14, 15, 18 and 24 above). 26.     On 28 March 2012 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the lower court’s findings that the applicant might flee or commit new crimes. It also noted that the criminal case was very complex and of a large scale: there were twenty-seven defendants, and the case file at that time consisted of seventy-six volumes. Thus, the Court of Appeal concluded that although the applicant had been detained for a very long time (two years and three months), the complexity and scope of the case made his detention essential for ensuring the unimpeded course of the criminal proceedings. 27.     From June to December 2012 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention every three months and the Court of Appeal dismissed his subsequent appeals, relying on essentially the same grounds as in previous court decisions (see paragraphs 14, 15, 18, 24 and 26 above). 28.     On 14 January 2013 the Court of Appeal, when dismissing an appeal by the applicant, emphasised that the case had been referred to the first ‑ instance court for examination on the merits and at that stage of the proceedings the maximum length of detention was not established either in domestic law or in the Convention or the Court’s case-law. It reiterated that the case against the applicant was complex and of a large scope – the case file at that time consisted of seventy-nine volumes. The Court of Appeal also considered that there had not been any undue delays in the examination of the case before the first-instance court. It dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s argument that after a lengthy period of detention he no longer had any motivation to flee or commit further crimes. 29.     In unrelated criminal proceedings, on 6 February 2013 the Šiauliai Regional Court convicted the applicant of unlawful deprivation of liberty by using violence under Article 146 § 2 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to seventy-five days of detention. 30.     The Vilnius Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months on 8 March 2013 and 13 June 2013, relying on essentially the same grounds as before (see paragraphs 14, 15, 18, 24 and   26 above) and additionally noting that the applicant was accused of serious crimes in another criminal case as well.   On 3 July 2013 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, reiterating, inter alia , the scope and complexity of the criminal case and noting that the case file at that time consisted of eighty-one volume. 31.     On 11 September 2013 the Vilnius Regional Court refused to extend the applicant’s detention. It noted that the applicant had been detained for more than three years, so the initial grounds – such as the possibility that he might flee or commit further crimes – could no longer justify his continued detention. The court also observed that all the witnesses and most of the co ‑ accused in the case had already been questioned, so it was no longer necessary to keep the applicant in detention. 32.     The Vilnius Regional Court released the applicant immediately and placed him under house arrest (see paragraph 52 below). The applicant’s passport and driver’s licence were taken and he was prohibited from leaving his home between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m., from visiting public places, except for medical institutions and shops, and from contacting the other defendants in the criminal case. According to the applicant, he complied with all those conditions and soon after his release he found a job as a security guard. 33.     On 24 September 2013 the Court of Appeal, following an appeal by the prosecution, quashed the lower court’s decision to release the applicant from detention, finding that the latter had erred in concluding that the detention was no longer justified. The Court of Appeal held that there were sufficient grounds to believe that the applicant might flee because he was facing a very severe punishment and had no strong social ties. It also held that the applicant might commit further crimes because he had allegedly been the leader of a criminal organisation, had been suspected of committing crimes for personal gain, and had had several prior convictions, all of which contributed to a “negative description of his personality” ( neigiamai charakterizuoja kaltinamojo asmenybę ). Although the court acknowledged that the applicant had been detained for a very long time (more than three years and six months), it reiterated that the public interest outweighed individual liberty, so the nature and seriousness of the charges against the applicant justified keeping him in detention. Lastly the Court of Appeal noted that the maximum length of detention during the examination of the case before the first-instance court was not established either in domestic law or in the Convention, so the necessity of extending detention had to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In the applicant’s case, the court considered that the scope of the case (twenty-seven defendants and, at that time, eighty-two volumes of case-file material) and the complexity of the investigation justified the applicant’s continued detention. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal extended the detention for three months. 34.     On 17 October 2013 the Vilnius Regional Court found that the applicant had been detained on remand in another criminal case (see paragraph 38 below). It held that it was unnecessary to order detention in two separate cases and thus quashed the applicant’s detention. However, on 5   November 2013 the Court of Appeal quashed that decision, finding that the grounds for detention established in its decision of 24 September 2013 (see paragraph 33 above) remained valid. 35.     On 20 December 2013 the Vilnius Regional Court again found that the applicant had been detained on remand in another criminal case and thus revoked his detention. However, on 7 January 2014 the Court of Appeal quashed that decision. It held that the applicant could be released only when the grounds for his detention had ceased to pertain, but the Vilnius Regional Court had not examined that. The Court of Appeal underlined that there was sufficient evidence (such as the testimonies of other defendants, eyewitness identification, surveillance data, expert reports, and other material in the case file) that the applicant might have committed the crimes with which he was charged. Then the court re-examined its previous findings concerning the need to keep the applicant in detention (see paragraph 33 above) and concluded that they were still valid. As a result, the Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months. 36.     On 28 March 2014 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention for a further three months. It relied on essentially the same grounds as the Court of Appeal in its previous decisions (see paragraphs 33 and 35 above), also noting that the applicant had connections abroad, which might facilitate his absconding. The Vilnius Regional Court also considered that the nature and seriousness of the charges against the applicant, as well as his personal character, indicated that he was especially dangerous to society and thus the commission of further crimes could not be prevented by less restrictive measures. 37.     On 15 April 2014 the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the findings of the lower court. It reiterated that neither domestic law nor the Convention established the maximum duration of detention during the examination of a case before a first-instance court. The court considered that the circumstances of the applicant’s case – such as the number, nature and seriousness of the charges against him, as well as the fact that proceeds of crime had allegedly been his main source of income ‑ required prioritising the protection of the public interest over the applicant’s individual liberty. Therefore, the Court of Appeal held that even the lengthy total period of the applicant’s detention was in compliance with domestic law and the Convention. 38.     In separate criminal proceedings, on 22 May 2014 the Vilnius Regional Court convicted the applicant of unauthorised possession of firearms, ammunition or explosives, destruction of or damage to other persons’ property, murder for personal gain, unlawful deprivation of liberty using violence, and violation of public order (Articles 253 § 1, 187 § 1, 129   § 2 (9), 146 § 2 and 284 § 1 of the Criminal Code, respectively). The applicant was sentenced to ten years and six months’ imprisonment, after deducting the time spent in pre-trial detention from 1 October 2013 to 1   April 2014 which had been ordered in that case. The applicant appealed against his conviction. According to the latest information submitted to the Court, at the time of the present judgment his appeal was still pending because the appellate court had decided to re ‑ examine the evidence in the light of new material. 39.     On 30 June 2014 the Vilnius Regional Court revoked the applicant’s detention order on the grounds that on 22 May 2014 he had been convicted in another criminal case (see paragraph 38 above). C.     Conduct of the criminal proceedings during the applicant’s detention 40.     From the applicant’s arrest on 15 December 2009 (see paragraph   7 above) to the completion of the pre-trial investigation on 3   December   2010 (see paragraph 17 above), the authorities conducted five interviews with the applicant, searched his home twice, seized and examined his car, computer and other belongings, ordered two forensic examinations of various seized items, sent four requests for information to telecommunications providers, carried out secret-surveillance activities, conducted an eyewitness identification of the applicant, and interviewed around fifty witnesses and other suspects. 41.     From the transfer of the case to the Vilnius Regional Court for examination on the merits on 3 December 2010 (see paragraph 17 above) to the applicant’s conviction in separate criminal proceedings on 22 May 2014 (see paragraph 38 above), a total of fifty-seven hearings were scheduled on a monthly or nearly monthly basis, and twenty-six of those hearings were adjourned: (a)     From 3 December 2010 to 31 March 2011 two hearings were scheduled but both were adjourned; (b)     From 1 April 2011 to 22 June 2011 six hearings were held; (c)     From 23 June 2011 to 7 December 2011 five hearings were scheduled but all were adjourned; (d)     From 8 December 2011 to 14 June 2012 twelve hearings were scheduled and nine of them were held; (e)     From 15 June 2012 to 3 October 2012 one hearing was scheduled but it was adjourned; (f)     From 4 October 2012 to 29 November 2012 five hearings were scheduled and four of them were held; (g)     From 30 November 2012 to 3 March 2013 two hearings were scheduled but both were adjourned; (h)     On 4 and 25 of March 2013 two hearings were scheduled and both were held; (i)     From 26 March 2013 to 6 October 2013 six hearings were scheduled but all were adjourned; (j)     From 7 October 2013 to 25 November 2013 six hearings were scheduled and five of them were held; (k)     From 26 November 2013 to 16 February 2014 four hearings were scheduled but all were adjourned; (l)     From 17 February 2014 to 22 May 2014 six hearings were scheduled and five of them were held. 42.     The main reasons for adjournment were the failure of the co ‑ accused or witnesses to appear, and in some of those instances the court ordered a search for them or imposed additional restrictive measures. During the thirty-one hearings which were held, the court heard over fifty testimonies of the co-accused and witnesses, read out the case material, played audio and video recordings, and examined applications lodged by the prosecutor and some of the co-accused. D.     Subsequent court decisions 43.     On 12 June 2015 the Vilnius Regional Court convicted the applicant of leading a criminal organisation armed with firearms and possession of a very large amount of narcotic and psychotropic substances with the intention to distribute them (Articles 249 § 3 and 260 § 3 of the Criminal Code, respectively). The applicant was sentenced to thirteen years’ imprisonment, after deducting the time spent in pre-trial detention from 15   December 2009 to 11 September 2013 and from 24   September   2013 to 30   June 2014. The applicant appealed against his conviction. According to the latest information submitted to the Court, at the time of the present judgment his appeal was still pending. 44.     On 23 September 2016 the Court of Appeal released the applicant on bail. The court observed that the applicant’s conviction by the first-instance court (see paragraph 38 above) had not yet become final because the appellate proceedings were pending, and those proceedings would likely last a long time. The court also noted that the applicant had already been detained for more than six years, which amounted to nearly two thirds of his sentence (see paragraph 38 above). The Court of Appeal set bail at 5,000   euros (EUR), prohibited the applicant from leaving his home, visiting certain public places, contacting the other co-accused, and leaving Lithuania, and ordered him to report to a local police station twice a week. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Detention on remand and house arrest 45.     Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania reads as follows: Article 20 “Human liberty shall be inviolable. No one may be arbitrarily apprehended or detained. No one may be deprived of his liberty otherwise than on the grounds and according to the procedures established by law. A person apprehended in flagrante delicto must, within forty-eight hours, be brought before a court for the purpose of deciding, in the presence of this person, on the validity of the apprehension. If the court does not adopt a decision to detain the person, the apprehended person shall be released immediately.” 46.     Article 119 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter – “the CCP”) provides that restrictive measures can be applied in order to ensure that the suspect, the accused or the convicted person participates in the proceedings, to prevent interference with the pre-trial investigation or with the examination of the case before the court, or with the execution of the sentence, and to prevent the commission of further criminal acts. 47.     Article 122 § 1 of the CCP permits detention on remand when there is a well-founded belief that the suspect may flee, interfere with the investigation, or commit further criminal acts. 48.     Article 122 § 2 of the CCP provides that where there is a reasonable suspicion that a suspect might flee, detention may be ordered after taking into account his or her marital status, permanent place of residence, employment status, state of health, prior convictions, connections abroad, and other relevant circumstances. 49.     Article 122 § 7 of the CCP states that detention on remand may be ordered only when more lenient remand measures would be insufficient to achieve the objectives listed in Article 119 of the CCP. 50.     Article 127 § 2 of the CCP provides that the maximum length of detention on remand during the pre-trial investigation is nine months, and in particularly complex or large-scale cases, or cases concerning organised criminal groups, eighteen months. The CCP does not prescribe the maximum length of detention after the pre-trial investigation has been completed and the case had been transferred to the first-instance court for examination on the merits. 51.     In its ruling of 30 December 2004, the Senate of the Supreme Court of Lithuania held as follows: “8.     When detention on remand is imposed or extended in line with Article 122 §   1 of the CCP, all the circumstances listed in Article 122 § 2 of the CCP must be considered. The seriousness of the crime and the possibility of life imprisonment fall under the notion of “other relevant circumstances” referred to in the latter provision. If such circumstances permit the conclusion that the person may flee ... then they warrant the imposition or extension of detention on remand on the grounds provided in [Article 122 § 1 of the CCP]. ... 10.     ... Grounds to believe that the person can commit further crimes ... may be established on the basis of that person’s criminal record, his or her role in committing the crimes [of which he or she is suspected], the fact that he or she is suspected of having committed several crimes or earning a living from criminal activity, as well as on the basis of witness testimonies and other data ... ... 15.     Article 127 §§ 1 and 2 of the CCP stipulate the maximum duration of detention at the stage of pre-trial investigation. That duration does not include the time during which the case is being examined by the court ... ... 22.     ... When detention is extended for more than six months, [the court] must indicate the circumstances which confirm the particular complexity or large scale of the case ... ... 24.     The terms “particular complexity of the case” and “large scale”, used in Article   127 § 2 of the CCP are relative ( vertinamosios ) and usually interrelated. The particular complexity or large scale of the case can arise from a large number of criminal acts, suspects or victims and witnesses ... or the need to conduct time ‑ consuming and complex examinations, or the multitude of procedural actions or case documents, and so forth ...” 52.     Article 132 § 1 of the CCP provides that house arrest consists of prohibiting the suspect from leaving his or her place of residence during certain hours, visiting public places and contacting certain persons. B.     Conduct of criminal proceedings 53.     Articles 243 and 244 § 1 of the CCP provide that the examination of a case could be adjourned in order to rest, to re-summon the parties or participants who have failed to appear, to request new evidence, or for other important reasons. 54.     On 13 March 2014 the CCP was amended. A new Article 242 1 § 1 establishes a court’s duty to examine a case within the shortest possible time and with as few adjournments as possible. Amended Articles   243 §   2 and   244 §   1 provide that a case can be adjourned for no longer than one month and that that term can be extended once. C.     Sentencing 55.     Article 66 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code provide that when sentencing a person who has been detained on remand, a court must deduct the time spent in detention from the final sentence. One day spent in detention is equivalent to one day of imprisonment. THE LAW I.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION 56.     The applicant complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which, in its relevant parts, reads: “Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph   1   (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” A.     Admissibility 57.     The Government argued that the applicant had failed to exhaust effective domestic remedies. They submitted that he had had the possibility to lodge a civil claim for damages in line with Article 6.272 of the Civil Code. The Government referred to the well-established case-law of the domestic courts in assessing the lawfulness and reasonable length of detention on remand, and noted that in many cases the parties had successfully sought compensation for damage caused by unreasonably long detention. Therefore, relying on the Court’s judgment in Varnas v.   Lithuania (no. 42615/06, §§ 85-89, 9 July 2013), the Government requested that the application be declared inadmissible due to non ‑ exhaustion of domestic remedies as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 58.     The applicant contested the Government’s argument, stating that he had not initiated civil proceedings because “the issue of damage was not the main one in this case”. 59.     The Court reiterates its findings in Varnas (cited above, §§ 85-89), that an action for damages can be considered an effective remedy only in those cases where the impugned detention has come to an end. Meanwhile where the person concerned is still in custody, the only remedy which may be considered sufficient and adequate is one which is capable of leading to a binding decision for his or her release (ibid., § 86, and the cases cited therein). The Court also reiterates that the requirement for the applicant to exhaust domestic remedies is normally determined with reference to the date on which the application was lodged with the Court (see Baumann v.   France , no. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001 ‑ V (extracts)). 60.     In the present case, at the time of the lodging of this application (24   April 2014), the applicant was still in detention (see paragraphs 37-38 above). Therefore, a claim for damages under Article 6.272 of the Civil Code was not a sufficient and adequate remedy which the applicant was obliged to exhaust. The Government’s preliminary objection is thus dismissed. 61.     The Court further notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor is it inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions 62.     The applicant submitted that his continued detention had been excessively long and unjustified. He stated that he had had a permanent place of residence with his parents and that he had complied with all the conditions of the house arrest, so the domestic courts had not had any reasonable grounds to find that he may have fled or committed further crimes. The applicant further submitted that the domestic courts had extended his detention quasi-automatically, repeating almost identical grounds in all their decisions. 63.     The Government submitted that in cases concerning organised crime the Court had found no violation of Article 5 when detention on remand had lasted over three years (see Wrona v. Poland , no. 23119/05, 5   January 2010; Luković v.   Serbia , no. 43808/07, 26 March 2013; and Mierzejewski v.   Poland , no. 15612/13, 24 February 2015). The Government argued that the present case, which concerned a criminal organisation armed with firearms and engaged in large-scale distribution of illegal drugs, had been exceptionally complex and therefore justified the lengthy detention of the applicant, who had been suspected of leading the said organisation and of committing multiple crimes under its umbrella. They also noted the large scope of the case: it had involved twenty-seven accused individuals and two hundred criminal episodes, in fifty of which the applicant had been involved. During the investigation at least fifty witnesses had been questioned, some of them multiple times, and a large number of other investigative actions had been carried out. The Government submitted that the authorities had acted with due diligence and there had not been any periods of inactivity on their part. The Government provided a timeline of all the investigative actions taken in respect of the applicant during the pre ‑ trial investigation, as well as a timeline of the seventy-five court hearings scheduled in the criminal proceedings (fifty-seven of them were scheduled before the applicant’s conviction in separate criminal proceedings ‑ see paragraphs 41-42 above), indicating the actions carried out by the court during each hearing or the reasons for adjournment. 64.     Lastly the Government submitted that the domestic courts in all their decisions had provided relevant and sufficient grounds to detain the applicant and that they had relied on the specific circumstances of the applicant’s case, as required by the Convention, and not on “general and abstract” considerations. 2.     The Court’s assessment (a)     General principles 65.     The applicable general principles have been recently summarised in Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, §§   84-91, ECHR   2016 (extracts). 66.     The Court reiterates in particular that the question of whether or not a period of detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in the abstract but must be assessed in each case according to its special features. Accordingly, there is no fixed time-frame applicable to each case (see McKay v.   the   United Kingdom [GC], no.   543/03, § 45, ECHR   2006 ‑ X). The responsibility falls in the first place to the national judicial authorities to ensure that, in a given case, the pre-trial detention of an accused person does not exceed a reasonable time. To this end they must, paying due regard to the principle of the presumption of innocence, examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a public interest which justifies a departure from the rule in Article 5 and must set them out in their decisions on the applications for release. It is essentially on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the established facts stated by the applicant in his appeals that the Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a violation of Article   5 §   3 (see Idalov v.   Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 141, 22   May 2012). 67.     The Court also reiterates that cases which concern organised crime inevitably present more difficulties for the investigative authorities and courts in determining the facts and the degree of responsibility of each member of the criminal organisation (see Pastukhov and Yelagin v.   Russia , no.   55299/07, § 44, 19 December 2013, and the cases cited therein). In cases of this kind, continuous control and limitation of the defendants’ ability to contact each other and other individuals may be essential to avoid their absconding, tampering with evidence and influencing or threatening witnesses. Accordingly, longer periods of detention than in other cases may be reasonable (see Bąk v.   Poland , no.   7870/04 , §§ 56-57, 16 January 2007; Tomecki v.   Poland , no.   47944/06, § 29, 20 May 2008; and Luković , cited above, §   46). 68.     Lastly, the Court reiterates that Article 5 § 3 of the Convention requires the competent national authorities to display “special diligence” in the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the accused in detention (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 153, ECHR 2000 ‑ IV). In assessing whether the “special diligence” requirement has been met, the Court will have regard to, inter alia , the overall complexity of the proceedings, any periods of unjustified delay and the steps taken by the authorities to speed up proceedings to ensure that the overall length of detention remains “reasonable” (see Suslov v. Russia , no. 2366/07, § 93, 29   May   2012, and the cases cited therein). While very long periods of detention do not automatically violate Article 5 § 3, the Court notes that exceptional circumstances are usually required to justify them (see Bulatović v.   Montenegro , no. 67320/10, § 143, 22 July 2014, and the cases cited therein). (b)     The application of the above principles in the present case (i)     Period to be taken into consideration 69.     In the present case the applicant’s detention on remand started on 15   December 2009 when he was arrested (see paragraph 7 above). He was detained for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention until his conviction by the Vilnius Regional Court on 22 May 2014 (see paragraph   38 above). Although to date that conviction has not become final, the Court reiterates that the period to be taken into consideration for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 ends on the day when the criminal charge is determined, even if only by a court of first instance (see Buzadji , cited above, § 85, and the cases cited therein). From 22 May 2014 the applicant was detained “after conviction by a competent court”, within the meaning of Article   5   §   1   (a) and therefore that period of his detention falls outside the scope of Article   5 §   3 (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §   104, ECHR   2000 ‑ XI; Piotr Baranowski v.   Poland , no. 39742/05, § 45, 2   October   2007; and Dragin v.   Croatia , no.   75068/12, §   111, 24 July 2014). 70.     During the period from 11 to 24   September 2013 the applicant’s detention was replaced by house arrest (see paragraphs 32-33 above). In this connection the Court reiterates that where detention on remand is broken into several non-consecutive periods and where applicants are free to lodge complaints about detention while they are at liberty, those non-consecutive periods should be assessed separately (see Idalov , cited above, § 129, and Chuprikov v. Russia , no. 17504/07, §   61, 12 June 2014). 71.     On many previous occasions the Court has held that house arrest, in view of its degree and intensity, amounted to deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 of the Convention (see Buzadji , cited above, §§   104-05), and thus a period of house arrest between periods of detention on remand was not considered as breaking the detention into several non ‑ consecutive periods (see, among others, Nikolova v. Bulgaria (no. 2) , no.   40896/98, § 60, 30 September 2004, and Süveges v. Hungary , no.   50255/12, § 77, 5   January 2016). In this connection the Court observes however that conditions of house arrest under Lithuanian law (see paragraph   52 above) differ rather significantly from those which it has previously assessed. Whereas the applicants in the other cases cited above were prohibited from leaving their place of residence save for