CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 19 décembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA7F61D3B { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB853CD30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:2pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .sC176A5AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .s7DF027B3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:9pt } .sE12E207D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:7.5pt } .s4009AD63 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD0A217A5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3936C9DD { width:11.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sBB64854C { width:8.45pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3BF0B6C7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5BDECA8 { width:5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6B38CF35 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s54B12A03 { width:6.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7C9EDFAD { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE8F2C496 { width:5.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDBF374D0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3F0D5878 { width:5.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAB798EC2 { width:3.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB9F7F539 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD62BB3FA { width:7.11pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s71220C2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s97B385A0 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#242424 } .s66CE15DD { font-family:Arial; color:#242424 } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sB706BD6C { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sAF613354 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:line-through } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8508A14D { width:8.94pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s1B1D10B4 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-19.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDBE60D67 { width:1.84pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sF0C78780 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5165BC52 { margin-left:17pt } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s31FAC864 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; list-style-position:inside } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s264C04A0 { margin-left:17.05pt; text-indent:-17.05pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sD95767A9 { width:33.22pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s436D3C2F { width:146.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside } SECOND SECTION CASE OF NARBUTAS v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 14139/21)   JUDGMENT   Art 3 (substantive aspect) • Inhuman or degrading treatment • Ban on applicant, suffering from cancer, attending any Ministry of Health institutions to access medical care, during house arrest imposed in the context of a criminal investigation against him • Requisite threshold of severity not attained Art 5 § 1 • Deprivation of liberty • Applicant’s provisional detention decided by the Special Investigation Service not in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law Art 8 • Private life • Disclosure to the public by the authorities of the applicant’s identity and about the ongoing pre-trial investigation • Content and form of press releases and public comments not justified by the need to inform the public of the ongoing criminal proceedings • Serious damage caused to the applicant’s reputation • Failure to strike fair balance between competing Art 8 and 10 rights Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Warning issued to the applicant not to disclose information about the pre-trial investigation despite many essential details already being public • Failure to provide relevant and sufficient reasons showing impugned interference necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to aims pursued Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Control of use of property • Temporary seizure of applicants’ assets (bank accounts, future income and car) during criminal proceedings • Failure to strike a fair balance between the general interest and the applicant’s fundamental rights Art 6 § 2 • Presumption of innocence • Art 35 § 1 • Exhaustion of domestic remedies • Public statements by high-ranking State officials allegedly implying applicant’s guilt before that question had been determined by the courts • Failure to lodge civil claim for protection of his honour and dignity against said officials   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 19 December 2023 FINAL   19/03/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Narbutas v. Lithuania, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Arnfinn Bårdsen , President ,   Jovan Ilievski,   Egidijus Kūris,   Pauliine Koskelo,   Frédéric Krenc,   Diana Sârcu,   Davor Derenčinović , judges , and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   14139/21) 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 Šarūnas Narbutas (“the applicant”), on 15 February 2021; the decision to give notice to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) of the complaints concerning the applicant’s alleged inability to access medical assistance (Article 3 of the Convention), the lawfulness of and justification for his detention (Article 5 § 1), his right to be presumed innocent (Article 6 § 2), the harm allegedly caused to his reputation by the publicity given to the criminal proceedings (Article 8), the restrictions on him discussing the case in the media (Article   10) and the temporary seizure of his assets (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention) and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 28 November 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns various remand measures applied against the applicant in the context of a high-profile criminal investigation relating to his involvement in the acquisition by the Lithuanian government of a large number of COVID-19 tests. The applicant raised complaints under Article   3, Article   5   §   1, Article   6   §   2, Article 8 and Article 10 of the Convention as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1988 and lives in Vilnius. He was represented by Ms E. Matulionytė and Ms R. Tamulytė, lawyers practising in Vilnius, and Mr L. Tsang, a lawyer practising in London. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė-Širmenė. 4 .     From 2013 to 2019 the applicant was the president of the Lithuanian Cancer Patient Coalition (hereinafter “POLA”), an association defending the interests of cancer patients and their families; he later became a member of its board. Previously, he had been a legal advisor to the President of Lithuania (in 2014-2016) and an advisor to a member of the Seimas (in 2010). He has also served on the management boards of several public bodies working mainly in the area of public health (see paragraph 237 below). At the material time, he was a university lecturer, the head of a private company and a self-employed consultant. I.         PURCHASE OF COVID-19 TESTS BY THE LITHUANIAN AUTHORITIES 5 .     On 26 February 2020 a national state of emergency was declared in Lithuania in view of the spread of the new coronavirus. On 16   March 2020 a nationwide lockdown was announced. During that time the relevant authorities were seeking to urgently purchase the items necessary to manage the spread of the virus. It appears that the authorities were also willing to accept assistance in this regard from individuals having no formal links to any State institutions. 6 .     As submitted by the applicant, in March 2020 he contacted several government officials and a pharmaceutical company registered in Spain (hereinafter “the company”) and negotiated with it a potential purchase of COVID-19 tests by the Lithuanian government. He also submitted that he and the company had agreed that he would be paid 1 euro (EUR) for every test sold. 7 .     On 21 and 23 March 2020 the National Public Health Surveillance Laboratory (hereinafter “NVSPL”), a public entity supervised by the Ministry of Health, signed two contracts with the company, purchasing 303,360 COVID-19 tests at a total cost of EUR   5,157,120. 8.     Between May and June 2020 the company paid EUR   303,360 into the applicant’s bank account. II.       SUSPICIONS AGAINST THE APPLICANT AND THE RESTRICTION OF HIS LIBERTY 9 .     On 30 March 2020 the Special Investigations Service ( Specialiųjų tyrimų tarnyba – hereinafter “the STT”) opened a pre-trial investigation into the circumstances of the purchase of COVID-19 tests by NVSPL. A.    The applicant’s provisional detention 10 .     On the morning of 21 July 2020 STT officers arrived at the applicant’s home. He was officially notified that he was suspected of trading in influence under Article 226 § 4 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 98 below). It was alleged that he had requested and accepted a bribe of EUR   303,360, disguised as commission, from the pharmaceutical company, in exchange for which he, using his social status, contacts or other possible or supposed influence, had convinced several people in charge of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including one of the Deputy Ministers of Health and the head of NVSPL, to purchase a large number of tests from the company. 11 .     On the same day, at 8.01 a.m., the STT informed the applicant that he was being held in provisional detention under Article 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP” – see paragraph 108   below). The relevant decision stated that the investigation was at its initial stage and that it was therefore likely that the applicant would flee, seek to influence witnesses and other potential suspects, hide or destroy evidence, or commit further crimes (see paragraph 104 below). It also stated that there was no possibility of urgently requesting a court to authorise his detention on remand (see paragraph   122 below). Moreover, the crime of which the applicant was suspected was punishable by imprisonment of between two and eight years. Accordingly, it was necessary to place him in provisional detention to prevent the commission of further crimes, enable the smooth conduct of the investigation, including the identification of all possible accomplices, and ensure his participation in the proceedings. 12 .     On the same day, from 9.44 a.m. to 12.48 p.m., the STT carried out a search of the applicant’s home, car and office, in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer. He was then taken to the STT headquarters, where he gave a written statement. At around 5 p.m. he was taken to a detention facility, where he remained until the following morning. 13 .     On the same day the applicant lodged a complaint with the prosecutor in which he submitted that the decision to place him in provisional detention was unlawful. He stated that it was based on general and abstract reasons and did not contain any information to justify why, in this particular case, there were grounds for believing that he might flee, interfere with the investigation or commit further crimes. The decision had been prepared before the STT agents had arrived at his home and did not take into account the fact that he had fully cooperated with them during the search of his home. Moreover, the conditions laid down in Article   140 § 2 of the CCP had not been met (see paragraph   108 below). The applicant further submitted that all the circumstances of his alleged criminal activity were already known because the events in question had taken place several months previously and he had provided all the relevant documents to the STT. Furthermore, he was married, had a place of residence, was employed and had no previous convictions. He therefore contended that his provisional detention had not been ordered to achieve any aims relating to the investigation but to scare and pressure him. Moreover, the decision had been taken without any consideration of the fact that he had been diagnosed with cancer, which required him to follow a certain daily regime, avoid stress and take special medication. He asked the prosecutor to quash the decision ordering his provisional detention. 14 .     On 22 July 2020 the prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The decision stated that detention could be ordered if there were grounds for believing that the person might flee, interfere with the investigation or commit further crimes; those grounds were alternative and not cumulative, so it was enough for at least one of them to be established. In the case at hand, the applicant was suspected of having committed a serious crime, which gave grounds for believing that he might commit further serious crimes (see paragraph 120 below), and the circumstances of the case did not rule out such a possibility. Moreover, in view of the nature and gravity of the suspicions against him, he might interfere with the investigation, seek to interfere with witnesses or other potential suspects directly or through other people, or destroy or hide relevant items or documents, in order to avoid criminal liability. Furthermore, the pre-trial investigation was at its initial stage, the authorities were questioning various people who could provide relevant information, all the factual circumstances of the suspected criminal activity had not yet been identified, and various items and documents remained to be seized. Accordingly, the applicant’s detention was necessary. Lastly, the prosecutor stated that at the time the impugned decision had been taken, there had been no possibility of urgently applying to a court for authorisation to detain him on remand. 15.     On the morning of 22 July 2020 the applicant was again taken to the STT headquarters and questioned as a suspect. He denied the allegations against him and submitted that he had acted as a lawful intermediary between the government and the pharmaceutical company. He also denied having any personal ties with the Deputy Minister of Health or the head of NVSPL and having exerted any influence over them. After questioning he was taken back to the detention facility. 16 .     On the same day the prosecutor asked the pre-trial investigation judge to authorise placing the applicant under house arrest for three months (see paragraph 122 below). The prosecutor’s request stated that, at that stage of the investigation, there were grounds for believing that the applicant might have committed the crime of which he was suspected and that, in order to establish all the relevant circumstances, it was necessary to restrict his contact with certain individuals and thereby prevent any possibility of evidence being hidden or destroyed. However, those aims could be achieved by applying a remand measure more lenient than detention. The prosecutor asked that the applicant be ordered to stay at home from 6 p.m. to 7 a.m., banned from contacting certain individuals and banned from attending the Ministry of Health or any institutions under it. 17 .     On the same day the STT asked the Vilnius police to arrange for the applicant to be taken to the Vilnius District Court under police escort. 18 .     The applicant was taken to court in an armoured police vehicle and escorted to the courtroom by two police officers. Although he was not handcuffed, he submitted that the police officers had told him to keep his hands behind his back, which had made it seem in the photographs and videos taken by journalists as though he was actually handcuffed (see paragraph   66 below). 19 .     The hearing before the pre-trial investigation judge was held at 3 p.m. the same day. At the start of the hearing, the applicant’s lawyer asked to have access to the investigation file. The request was granted and the court adjourned for approximately one hour. After the hearing resumed, the applicant’s lawyer argued that imposing any remand measure on the applicant was unjustified because there were no grounds for believing that his actions had constituted a criminal offence. 20 .     The pre-trial investigation judge delivered a decision at 4.55 p.m. The judge allowed the prosecutor’s request in part and placed the applicant under house arrest for one month. He was ordered to stay at home from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., banned from contacting the individuals indicated in the prosecutor’s request and banned from attending the Ministry of Health or any institutions under it. 21 .     The applicant was released from provisional detention at 5.15 p.m. in the afternoon of 22 July 2020. B.    Proceedings concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s provisional detention 1.      Decision of the senior prosecutor 22 .     On 29 July 2020 the applicant lodged a complaint with the senior prosecutor against the decisions concerning his placement in provisional detention (see paragraphs   11 and 14 above). He submitted, as in his previous complaint (see paragraph 13 above), that the decision ordering his provisional detention had been based on general and abstract reasons and had not taken into account his individual circumstances. He further submitted that the conditions set out in the CCP when provisional detention could be ordered had not been met. In particular, neither the STT nor the prosecutor had provided any explanation why it had not been possible to urgently apply to a court for authorisation of detention on remand (see paragraph 108 below). The applicant pointed out that the pre-trial investigation had been opened in March 2020 and that it appeared from the case file that he had been identified as a potential suspect from the very beginning; however, from then until July 2020, the prosecutor had not applied to a court for authorisation to detain him. Moreover, before arriving at his home on 21 July 2020, the STT had obtained court authorisation to carry out a search, and there was no explanation why it could not have also sought similar authorisation for his detention. The applicant contended that, under Article   140   §   2 of the CCP, provisional detention of a person who had not been caught committing a criminal offence was an exceptional measure, but that the impugned decisions had in no way explained why such a measure had been justified in his case. 23 .     The applicant further submitted that there had been no objective grounds justifying his detention. The pre-trial investigation had been ongoing since March 2020, so it could not be said that in July 2020 it had been at its initial stage. By that time the investigators had obtained all the relevant documents concerning his alleged criminal activity – the commission agency agreement between him and the company, the invoices he had provided to the company and records of his bank accounts – and it had not been indicated what other items or documents remained to be seized. If the authorities had failed to carry out certain investigative measures during the first three months of the investigation, that could not justify his detention. He also contended that in the impugned decisions the risk of him absconding had been assessed solely with reference to the fact that he was suspected of a serious crime, but that that was not in line with the Court’s case-law (in this connection, he relied on W. v. Switzerland , 26 January 1993, §   33, Series A no. 254-A; Smirnova v. Russia , nos. 46133/99 and 48183/99, § 60, ECHR 2003-IX (extracts); Becciev v. Moldova , no. 9190/03, § 58, 4 October 2005; and Cabała v.   Poland , no. 23042/02, § 31, 8 August 2006). Lastly, he submitted that the authorities had failed to justify why more lenient remand measures could not achieve the aims of Article   119 of the CCP (see paragraph 104 below). 24 .     On 10 August 2020 the senior prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The decision acknowledged that when ordering any remand measure, it was necessary to consider the individual circumstances of the case, such as the suspect’s personality, place of residence, lawful source of income, age, health and family situation. In the applicant’s case, those circumstances had been duly taken into account, as demonstrated by the fact that the prosecutor had eventually asked the court to place him under house arrest rather than extend his detention. However, that did not mean that his provisional detention had not been justified. The senior prosecutor emphasised that a pre-trial investigation was a constantly changing process in which new information came to light and remand measures had to be reassessed regularly. It was the prerogative of the prosecutor to choose a particular remand measure. 25 .     Furthermore, the fact that the prosecutor had obtained advance authorisation from the court to search the applicant’s home had not deprived the STT of the right to provisionally detain him under Article 140 § 2 of the CCP. According to the senior prosecutor, it was obvious that, at the time the decision ordering his provisional detention had been adopted, there had been no possibility of applying to a court for authorisation. Nonetheless, the applicant had been able to complain about that decision the very same day and his complaint had been examined by the prosecutor the following day, thereby providing him with a speedy review. Accordingly, his provisional detention had been lawful and none of the arguments indicated in his complaint supported a different conclusion. 2.      Decisions of the courts 26 .     On 17 August 2020 the applicant lodged an appeal against the senior prosecutor’s decision with the pre-trial investigation judge of the Vilnius District Court. He presented essentially the same arguments as in his previous complaints (see paragraphs 13, 22 and 23 above). In addition, he emphasised that the decision of the STT to place him in provisional detention had been drawn up and printed out before the officers had arrived at his home, which demonstrated that the STT had decided to detain him without finding out any of his personal circumstances, including his health, and without assessing his cooperation in the investigation. Moreover, if the STT had been able to prepare such a decision in advance, it remained unclear why it could not have sought authorisation from the court. Lastly, the applicant contended that after the prosecutor had decided to ask a court to place him under house arrest rather than detain him on remand (see paragraph   16 above), it had become clear that the grounds for his continued detention were not present and that he should have been released immediately, but that this had not been done. Instead, he had been taken to court by the police (see paragraph   18 above) in order to make him appear guilty in the eyes of society. The applicant asked the pre-trial investigation judge to assess the lawfulness of his provisional detention for its entire duration and quash the impugned decisions of the STT, prosecutor and senior prosecutor. 27 .     On 8 October 2020 the pre-trial investigation judge of the Vilnius District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The decision stated that although the pre-trial investigation had been opened on 30   March 2020, no witnesses had been questioned until 21 July 2020. Therefore, at that stage, there had been grounds for believing that the applicant might seek to interfere with witnesses or hide or destroy relevant documents. Moreover, according to the case-law of the domestic courts, the gravity of the alleged crime and the seriousness of the potential punishment were among the factors which could lead the authorities to believe that the suspect might flee. Accordingly, the decision to place the applicant in provisional detention had been lawful. The pre-trial investigation judge also stated that, after the applicant had been placed in provisional detention, it had not been possible to urgently seek authorisation from a court: court hearings on remand measures had to be scheduled in advance and requests concerning detention on remand had to be comprehensive and properly reasoned, which meant that they took time to prepare. 28 .     Lastly, the pre-trial investigation judge refused to examine the applicant’s request for an assessment of the lawfulness of the entire duration of his provisional detention on the grounds that he had not lodged such a request with the prosecutor and senior prosecutor, as required by the CCP. 29 .     The decision indicated that it was amenable to appeal before the Vilnius Regional Court. 30.     On 16 October 2020 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Vilnius Regional Court in which he raised essentially the same arguments as previously (see paragraphs 13, 22, 23 and 26 above). In addition, he submitted that the pre-trial investigation judge had assessed whether it had been possible to seek a court’s authorisation after he had been placed in provisional detention, but not whether this had been possible before his provisional detention, which was one of the conditions for ordering such detention under Article   140   §   2 of the CCP (see paragraph   108 below). The applicant also submitted that the CCP and Article   5   §   4 of the Convention entitled him to lodge complaints with the courts regarding the lawfulness of his detention and that, therefore, his request for an assessment of the lawfulness of the entire duration of his provisional detention should have been examined. 31.     On 4 November 2020 the Vilnius Regional Court discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that, contrary to the lower court’s findings (see paragraph   29 above), decisions taken by the pre-trial investigation judge concerning provisional detention were final and not amenable to further appeal. C.    Proceedings concerning house arrest 32 .     On 29   July 2020 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Vilnius Regional Court against the decision to place him under house arrest (see paragraph 20 above). He submitted, in particular, that he had cancer and needed constant medical attention, but that he had been banned from going to the public hospital in which he was being treated, since all public hospitals were run by the Ministry of Health. He contended that the ban amounted to inhuman treatment. 33 .     On 18 August 2020 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part. It observed that he had not provided any proof that he had needed to go to the hospital during the period of his house arrest and that the documents he had submitted indicated that a follow-up visit with a doctor was scheduled to take place in September 2020. Nonetheless, the court acknowledged that, in view of the applicant’s illness, it could not be ruled out that he might need to go to hospital. Accordingly, it amended the lower court’s decision and allowed him to attend all medical facilities when necessary for treatment purposes. 34 .     On 19 August 2020 the prosecutor adopted a decision releasing the applicant from house arrest and instead banned him from going abroad without the prosecutor’s permission. He remained banned from contacting certain individuals and attending the Ministry of Health or any institutions under it, except when necessary for treatment purposes. 35.     In February 2021 the applicant asked the prosecutor to lift the above-mentioned restrictions in part and allow him to attend the Ministry of Health and any institutions under it. He also asked for permission to contact some of the individuals indicated in the prosecutor’s decision, to the extent that this was necessary for him to carry out his functions as a board member of POLA. In March 2021 the restriction was lifted with regard to certain institutions under the Ministry of Health. III.     TEMPORARY SEIZURE OF THE APPLICANT’S PROPERTY A.    Prosecutor’s decision of 21 July 2020 36 .     On 21 July 2020 the prosecutor ordered the seizure of the applicant’s property – all of his bank accounts and his car – for six months, in order to secure a possible civil claim, confiscation or extended confiscation of property (see paragraphs 124-130 below). He was allowed to use the car but none of the money in his bank accounts, including any future income. 37.     On 22 July 2020, in the applicant’s presence, an STT officer assessed the value of the property temporarily seized at EUR 350,000. B.    Prosecutor’s decision of 10 September 2020 38 .     On 30   August 2020 the applicant lodged a request with the prosecutor to amend the aforementioned decision and lift the temporary seizure of his property in part. He submitted that no civil claims had been lodged and that no victims had been identified in the criminal proceedings against him and that, therefore, the temporary seizure of his property could not be justified by the need to secure a civil claim (see paragraph 124 below). While the law permitted the temporary seizure of property which might have been used to commit the alleged criminal activity or obtained from such activity, in his case, the value of the seized property (EUR 350,000) exceeded the profit he had received from the alleged criminal activity (EUR   303,360). Since it had not been alleged that the remaining money in his bank accounts or his car had been in any way related to the alleged criminal activity, there were no grounds for seizing them. 39 .     The applicant further submitted that the measure was disproportionate. He pointed out that EU regulations which provided for the seizure of assets of individuals accused of certain serious crimes nonetheless authorised the release of funds necessary to satisfy their basic needs, such as food, medicine, rent, taxes and legal expenses (he relied on Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006 of 18   May 2006 concerning restrictive measures against President Lukashenko and certain officials of Belarus and on Council Regulation (EC) No   2580/2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism). The applicant therefore contended that he was subject to stricter restrictions than those applicable to individuals accused of crimes against humanity or terrorism. He submitted that the ban on him using any of the money in his bank accounts for six months, including any future income received from lawful sources, precluded him from meeting his basic needs, such as buying food and medication, paying rent, taxes and social security payments, or hiring a lawyer to defend him in the criminal proceedings. He submitted that meeting those needs required approximately EUR 6,650 per month – including approximately EUR 1,000 for the rent of his flat and approximately EUR   4,500 for legal expenses. He enclosed invoices for the legal expenses he had incurred between July and August 2020 and bank statements showing the amounts he paid every month for rent and utilities, payments to various social security funds and various other expenses, including food, gas, medical procedures and consultations with a psychologist. Accordingly, the applicant asked that the temporary seizure be lifted from all of his property except for the amount of EUR   303,360. 40 .     On 10 September 2020 the prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s request. The decision stated that the temporary seizure of property could be applied when at least one of the grounds indicated in the CCP was present, that is to say when it was necessary to secure a possible civil claim, confiscation or extended confiscation of property. The CCP did not lay down any other conditions for applying this measure. The prosecutor further stated that a civil claim in criminal proceedings could be lodged until the start of the examination of the case by the court (see paragraph 129 below). Accordingly, the existence of civil claims and their potential amount could not be determined until the pre-trial investigation was completed, and the prosecutor had an obligation to ensure that such a claim could be satisfied if eventually lodged. Furthermore, in cases which concerned, among other things, allegations of bribery or trading in influence, the prosecutor was required, in accordance with a regulation approved by the Prosecutor General’s Office, to investigate the origins of the suspect’s property (see paragraphs 144-146 below). Such an investigation with respect to the applicant’s property had been opened on 4 September 2020 and was currently ongoing, and therefore there were no grounds for lifting the temporary seizure. 41 .     The prosecutor further stated that there was no indication that the temporary seizure of the applicant’s property had restricted his rights significantly more than necessary. While the applicant had submitted information about his usual monthly expenses, he had not asked to be allowed to use part of his assets to meet his basic needs. Nonetheless, the prosecutor acknowledged that it was necessary to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the rights of victims or potential civil claimants and, on the other, those of the suspect. The prosecutor considered that since the applicant had not provided information about the amount of money necessary to meet his actual basic needs, he would be allowed to use EUR 607 per month, corresponding to the minimum monthly salary. According to the prosecutor, the fact that the applicant, who was accused of a serious crime, could not live according to his usual lifestyle did not allow for the conclusion that the temporary seizure of property was unlawful or unjustified. 42 .     The decision stated that it was amenable to appeal before the senior prosecutor. C.    Decisions of the courts 43 .     On 21 September 2020 the applicant lodged an appeal against the prosecutor’s decisions of 21 July and 10 September 2020 with the pre-trial investigation judge of the Vilnius District Court. He emphasised that the suspicions against him related to the alleged bribe in the amount of EUR   303,360 (see paragraph 10 above). Although the prosecutor had stated that a civil claim in the criminal proceedings might be lodged at a later stage, it had not been explained who the potential civil claimants might be or what the extent of the damage allegedly caused might have been. Accordingly, the temporary seizure of the applicant’s property had been based on purely hypothetical reasons. Moreover, neither the notice of suspicion nor the decisions ordering the temporary seizure of his property had contained any allegations concerning the lawfulness of the origins of his other property. Although in the decision of 10 September 2020 the prosecutor had also referred to the fact that an investigation into the origins of the applicant’s property was ongoing (see paragraph 40 above), the applicant questioned whether such an investigation had been justified on objective grounds. He pointed out, in particular, that the pre-trial investigation had been opened in March 2020 and that he had been officially notified of the suspicions against him in July 2020, but that the investigation into the origins of his property had only started in September 2020, after he had asked the prosecutor to amend the temporary seizure. He also submitted that an investigation into the origins of a person’s property was not one of the grounds on which the CCP allowed a temporary seizure to be ordered (see paragraph   124 above). 44 .     The applicant further argued that EUR 607 per month was insufficient to meet his needs, including the need to pay for a lawyer in the criminal proceedings, rent, food and medical expenses. He submitted the same supporting documents that he had provided to the prosecutor (see paragraph   39 above). He emphasised that legal expenses, medical expenses, rent and social security payments were essential and could not be deferred. 45 .     Lastly, the applicant complained that some of the wording used in the prosecutor’s decision of 10 September 2020 had implied that he was guilty of the crimes of which he was suspected. He contended that the prosecutor might have been influenced by the politicisation of the investigation, as even the President had made public statements incompatible with the principle of the presumption of innocence (see paragraph   73 below). 46 .     On 28 October 2020 the pre-trial investigation judge of the Vilnius District Court dismissed the part of the applicant’s appeal relating to the prosecutor’s decision of 21 July 2020 (see paragraph 36 above). The judge held that the temporary seizure of the applicant’s property was in accordance with the law and necessary in order to secure a civil claim if one were eventually lodged in the criminal proceedings, or to ensure the possible confiscation or extended confiscation of the relevant property. The judge acknowledged that the investigation into the origins of the applicant’s property had not been started at the time that the decision to temporarily seize his property had been adopted, but considered that the delay was justified by the large scope of the case and the amount of information which needed to be examined. Moreover, although the value of the property seized (EUR   350,000) exceeded the amount of the alleged bribe (EUR 303,360), the judge considered that the difference between the two amounts (EUR 46,640) was not such as to make the measure “grossly disproportionate”. 47 .     The pre-trial investigation judge left the part of the applicant’s appeal concerning the prosecutor’s decision of 10   September 2020 unexamined on the grounds that he had not complained about that decision before the senior prosecutor, as required by law and as indicated in the decision itself (see paragraph 42 above). 48 .     On 4 November 2020 the applicant lodged an appeal against the pre ‑ trial investigation judge’s decision with the Vilnius Regional Court, raising essentially the same arguments as in his previous complaints (see paragraphs   38, 39, 43 and 44 above). However, on 26 November 2020 the court dismissed the appeal. In particular, with regard to the proportionality of the temporary seizure, the court agreed with the pre-trial investigation judge that the value of the property seized did not significantly exceed the amount of the alleged bribe. It also held that the investigation into the origins of the applicant’s other property was ongoing and that it could therefore not yet be concluded that his remaining property had been obtained lawfully. Lastly, the court noted that the prosecutor’s decision of 10 September 2020 entitled the applicant to use EUR 607 per month to meet his basic needs and that he had not complained about that decision before a senior prosecutor (see paragraph   47 above). D.    Extensions of the temporary seizure of property 49 .     On 18 January 2021 the pre-trial investigation judge of the Vilnius District Court extended the temporary seizure of the applicant’s property for a further three months, allowing him to use EUR 607 per month. The applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that the seizure of any property above the amount of EUR 303,360 was disproportionate and that a monthly amount of EUR   607 was insufficient to meet his basic needs (see paragraphs 38, 39, 43 and 44 above). 50 .     On 17   February 2021 the Vilnius Regional Court allowed the appeal in part. It stated that remand measures could not be applied for an excessive period of time and that investigating officers and prosecutors were under an obligation to take measures to allow people who might have sustained damage as a result of alleged criminal activity to exercise their procedural rights within a reasonable time. In line with the principles of proportionality and the balance of interests, if a civil claim was not lodged within a reasonable time and if there were no other grounds for applying a remand measure, a temporary seizure of property had to be discontinued. In the applicant’s case, although no civil claim had been lodged to date, the investigating officers were still awaiting the conclusion of the relevant authorities regarding the applicant’s tax obligations and other possible consequences of the alleged criminal activity. Moreover, the Ministry of Health had not yet informed the investigating officers whether the Ministry or the State had sustained any damage. The pre-trial investigation was complex and large-scale and measures were being taken to determine whether any, and if so what, damage might have been caused. Accordingly, the court concluded that, at that stage of the proceedings, the temporary seizure of his property could not be considered disproportionate. 51 .     Nonetheless, the court acknowledged that the amount of EUR 607 per month was not sufficient to meet the applicant’s basic needs, given the cost of the rent of his flat and his other expenses. He was allowed to use EUR   1,000 per month. 52 .     The temporary seizure of the applicant’s property was extended in April, July and October 2021, each time for a further three months, on essentially the same grounds. In an appeal against the last of those decisions, the applicant argued that since the investigation into the origins of his property had been completed on 19 November 2020, the continuing seizure of all of his assets was unjustified. The appeal was dismissed. 53 .     On 19   October 2021 the Ministry of Health was recognised as a civil claimant in the criminal proceedings. It claimed EUR 303,360 in respect of the pecuniary damage allegedly caused by the applicant. 54 .     After the case was sent for trial (see paragraph 94 below), on 20   January 2022 the Vilnius Regional Court extended the temporary seizure of the applicant’s property for a further three months. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision, submitting that the seizure of his property exceeding the amount of the civil claim (see paragraph   53 above) was disproportionate and precluded him from meeting his basic needs (see paragraph 39 above) and paying taxes (see paragraph   57 below). 55 .     On 21 February 2022 the Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s appeal in part. It held that the extension of the temporary seizure of property had been justified. However, the value of the seized property clearly exceeded the amount of the civil claim which that measure aimed to secure (see paragraph   53 above), which meant that the applicant’s property rights had been disproportionately restricted. The court extended the seizure with regard to three of his bank accounts (which contained EUR 320,000 in total), allowing him to withdraw up to EUR 1,000 per m