CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 mai 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF0D1552C { margin-left:31.4pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s8FBB5171 { width:17.54pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s22B188 { width:133.09pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF993D337 { width:25.88pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF78227B2 { width:156.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 35321/21 Žygimantas ŽUKAUSKAS against Lithuania   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 5   May   2026 as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Gediminas Sagatys,   Stéphane Pisani , judges , and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no.   35321/21) 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”) on 2   July   2021 by a Lithuanian national, Mr   Žygimantas Žukauskas (“the applicant”), who was born in 1980, lives in Kaunas and was represented by Ms   A.   Ručienė, a lawyer practising in Kaunas; the decision to give notice of the application to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr   R.   Dzikovič; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The application concerns legal assistance in proceedings regarding the applicant’s detention on remand. The applicant’s arrest 2 .     At 12.50   p.m. on 22   May 2021, which was a Saturday, the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug-related offences and placed in provisional detention. According to Article 123   §   4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, detention without a court order was authorised for no more than forty-eight hours. 3 .     At around 12.10   p.m. on 23   May 2021 he was officially notified of the suspicions against him. He signed a letter giving lawyer A.R. the authority to represent him and was questioned by the police in her presence. 4 .     At around 6.20   p.m. on 23   May 2021 the prosecutor lodged a request with the pre-trial judge to authorise the applicant’s detention on remand for three months. The proceedings at issue 5 .     At around 10.20   a.m. on 24   May 2021 the prosecutor called A.R. and informed her that a hearing concerning the applicant’s detention on remand would be held on that same day. The prosecutor asked her whether she agreed to participate in the hearing via videolink. According to the applicant, the lawyer agreed, but asked the prosecutor to provide her with evidence on the basis of which detention on remand was being sought. The prosecutor told her that he would call her back but did not do so. 6 .     In an official report issued later, the prosecutor stated that at around 9   a.m. on 24   May 2021 he had learned which judge would be deciding on the applicant’s detention. He had called that judge shortly after 10   a.m. to enquire about the time of the hearing. The judge had informed him that the hearing would be held at 11   a.m. on the same day, via videolink. In view of the short time remaining, the prosecutor had called the applicant’s lawyer to see whether she would be able to attend the hearing. During the phone call, he had understood that the lawyer would not participate in the hearing without first accessing the case material submitted to the court (see paragraph   5 above). He had informed the judge accordingly, but the judge had told him that the hearing could not be postponed. The prosecutor had therefore asked the investigating officer to ensure that, in the event that A.R. did not attend the hearing, the applicant would be represented by a court-appointed lawyer. He regretted not having called A.R. back but submitted that the situation had been caused by time constraints and miscommunication between himself, the judge and the lawyer, and not by any intention to exclude the lawyer from the proceedings. 7 .     The hearing concerning the applicant’s detention on remand before the pre ‑ trial judge of the Vilnius District Court, held via videolink, started at 11.25   a.m. The applicant was represented by a court-appointed lawyer. According to the applicant, he did not object to that lawyer representing him because the judge had told him that A.R. was unable to attend. 8 .     During the hearing, the applicant asked the judge not to authorise his detention on remand. He denied the accusations against him, submitted that he was married and had two young children, and asked the judge to impose a more lenient remand measure. The court-appointed lawyer also asked the judge not to authorise the applicant’s detention on remand, on the grounds that he had a family, a job and strong social ties, and there was no proof that he might attempt to hide evidence or influence witnesses. 9 .     In a decision issued on the same day, the pre-trial judge granted the prosecutor’s request in part. The judge observed that the applicant was suspected of having committed offences while acting as part of an organised group and that the pre-trial investigation was still at its initial stage. Thus, detention on remand was necessary in order to preclude him from trying to interfere with witnesses or other suspects, or from seeking to hide or destroy evidence. However, the investigation material was insufficient to adequately determine whether the suspicions against him were well founded. For that reason, the judge authorised the applicant’s detention on remand for ten days, instead of the three months requested by the prosecutor. 10.     According to the applicant, A.R. learned about that decision at around 12.55   p.m. on the same day, when she called the investigating officer to enquire about the applicant’s situation and the officer informed her that the judge had already delivered a decision on his detention on remand. 11 .     The applicant lodged an appeal against the above-mentioned decision on the same day. He submitted, inter alia , that his right to legal defence had not been ensured because, during the hearing, he had not been represented by a lawyer of his own choosing, and the pre-trial judge had misled him by stating that his lawyer could not attend. Furthermore, his representation by the court-appointed lawyer had been ineffective because that lawyer had not been acquainted with the case file – a copy of the prosecutor’s request had been sent to him at 11.20   a.m., only five minutes before the hearing had started (see paragraph   7 above). 12 .     On 1   June 2021 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the appeal. In particular, it found that during the hearing before the pre-trial judge, the applicant had not asked for the court-appointed lawyer to be removed and there was no indication that that lawyer had represented him ineffectively. 13.     According to Article 51   §   1   (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, representation by a lawyer is mandatory in hearings concerning detention on remand. Relevant subsequent proceedings 14 .     A.R. lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office, alleging that the prosecutor and the pre-trial judge might have committed the criminal offence of abuse of office. In June 2021 the Prosecutor General’s Office refused to open a pre-trial investigation, finding that no criminal offence had been committed. In particular, relying on the explanation provided by the prosecutor (see paragraph   6 above), it found no grounds to believe that the prosecutor or the judge might have acted deliberately to preclude A.R. from representing the applicant. That decision was upheld by the courts. 15 .     A.R. also lodged a request with the Judicial Council, asking it to assess the actions of the above-mentioned pre-trial judge. The Judicial Council recommended that the Judges’ Ethics and Disciplinary Commission open disciplinary proceedings against the judge, but in December 2021 the Commission decided against doing so. It stated that the shortcomings in the organisation of the hearing had essentially resulted from time constraints and not from any clearly negligent actions or omissions on the part of the judge. The applicant’s complaint 16 .     The applicant complained that at the hearing of 24   May 2021 he had not been represented by the lawyer of his own choosing, that the representation by the court-appointed lawyer had not been effective, and that there had been no legal basis for the court ‑ appointed lawyer to represent him because the decision on the lawyer’s appointment had been drawn up only after the hearing. The applicant raised these complaints under Article 6   §   3   (c) of the Convention. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT The applicable provision and relevant general principles 17 .     The Court notes that on 22   May 2021 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence and on 24   May 2021 he was “brought before a judge” within the meaning of paragraph   3 of Article   5 of the Convention. Therefore, the complaint about the detention hearing of 24   May 2021 falls under that Convention provision (see Lebedev v.   Russia , no.   4493/04, §   74, 25   October 2007). 18 .     Article 5   §   3 of the Convention provides persons arrested or detained on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence with a guarantee against any arbitrary or unjustified deprivation of liberty (see Aquilina v.   Malta [GC], no.   25642/94, §   47, ECHR 1999-III). Under the first limb of paragraph   3, the person concerned has a right to be brought “promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” offering the requisite guarantees of independence from the executive and the parties. That provision includes a procedural requirement on the “judge or other officer authorised by law” to hear the individual brought before him or her in person, and a substantive requirement on the same officer to consider the merits of the detention and to order release if there are no reasons to justify it (see Buzadji v.   the Republic of Moldova [GC], no.   23755/07, §   98, 5   July 2016, and the cases cited therein). The review of the merits of the detention must be prompt and automatic (see Stephens v.   Malta (no. 2) , no.   33740/06, §   53, 21   April 2009, and the cases cited therein). 19 .     Whereas Article 6   §   3   (c) of the Convention provides that “[e]veryone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... to defend himself ... through legal assistance of his own choosing ...” (see Dvorski v.   Croatia [GC], no. 25703/11, §   78, ECHR 2015), Article 5   §   3 of the Convention does not make a lawyer’s presence obligatory in proceedings concerning detention on remand that fall under that provision (see Schiesser v.   Switzerland , 4   December 1979, §   36, Series A no.   34; Lebedev , cited above, §   84, and Solovyevy v.   Russia , no.   918/02, §   136, 24   April 2012). However, specific features of a given case may lead the Court to depart from this general rule and to find that the exclusion of the applicant’s lawyer adversely affected the applicant’s ability to present his or her case (see Lebedev , cited above, §§   85-91). Application of the above principles to the present case 20 .     In the light of the arguments submitted by the parties, the Court considers it necessary to emphasise that, in line with the above-mentioned general principles, what it must assess in the present case is whether there were any specific features which made the presence of a lawyer necessary in the hearing concerning the applicant’s detention on remand, despite the fact that, as a general rule, Article 5   §   3 of the Convention does not require such presence (see paragraph   19 above). 21.     The applicant did not allege that the pre-trial judge of the Vilnius District Court, who had heard him in person, had not offered the requisite guarantees of independence or had not had the authority to consider the merits of the detention and to order release; nor did he raise any arguments concerning the promptness or the automatic nature of the review of his detention (see the general principles summarised in paragraph   18 above). Moreover, he did not complain to the Court that he had been denied access to the case file. His complaint solely concerned legal assistance during the hearing concerning the order of his detention on remand (see paragraph   16 above), thus, this is the only issue which the Court is called on to address in the present case. 22.     The Court observes that the applicant was brought before the pre-trial judge two days after his arrest and more than twenty-three hours after being notified of the suspicions against him (see paragraphs   2, 3 and 7 above). During the period between his arrest and the detention hearing, he authorised a lawyer to represent him and was questioned in her presence (see paragraph   3 above). He did not contend that, during that time, he had not been able to confer with his lawyer. Nor did he allege that the hearing involved a discussion of issues that had not been previously raised in the proceedings. Accordingly, there are no reasons for the Court to find that the applicant was placed in a vulnerable situation vis-à-vis the prosecution (compare and contrast Lebedev , §§   85-86, and Solovyevy , §   135, both cited above). 23.     The applicant was heard by the pre-trial judge in person and presented arguments against his detention (see paragraph   8 above), and the Court is satisfied that the pre-trial judge engaged in a review of the procedural and substantive conditions of the detention (see paragraph   9 above). It therefore considers that the applicant was given a real opportunity to challenge the legality of his detention (compare and contrast Kyriacou Tsiakkourmas and Others v.   Turkey , no. 13320/02, §§   210-11, 2   June 2015). Furthermore, he did not allege that the exclusion of his lawyer from the hearing of 24   May 2021 had precluded him from effectively exercising his right under Article 5   §   4 of the Convention to challenge the lawfulness of his continued detention in subsequent review proceedings. 24.     The Court further observes that the exclusion of the applicant’s lawyer from the hearing in issue appears to have resulted from time constraints and miscommunication between various actors (see paragraphs   6, 14 and 15 above) and not from any decision deliberately taken to that effect (compare and contrast Lebedev , cited above, §   88). 25 .     In the light of the foregoing, the Court finds that it has not been shown that, in the present case, there were any specific features which, in line with the requirements under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention, made the presence of a lawyer necessary in the hearing of 24   May 2021 concerning the applicant’s detention on remand. Consequently, the fact that in that hearing he was not represented by a lawyer of his own choosing cannot be considered contrary to that provision given the circumstances. 26.     The Court takes note of the applicant’s arguments that there had been no legal basis for the court-appointed lawyer to represent him, that the lawyer only had five minutes to prepare for the hearing and that the applicant and the lawyer did not meet or speak in private before the start of the hearing. It has held, in the context of Article   6 of the Convention, that assigning counsel does not in itself ensure the effectiveness of the assistance he or she may afford an accused (see Beuze v.   Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, §§   132-34, 9   November 2018). It also reiterates that it is for the State to organise its judicial system in such a way as to enable its institutions to comply with the requirements of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Rakhmonov v.   Russia , no. 50031/11, §   60, 16   October 2012, and the case-law cited therein). Be that as it may, in the light of its conclusion in paragraph   25 above, the Court finds those arguments to be immaterial for its assessment of the present case. 27.     It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35   §§   3   (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 28   May 2026.     Dorothee von Arnim   Péter Paczolay   Deputy Registrar   President