CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 février 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }     Communicated on 24 February 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 57435/09 Saulius PAULIKAS against Lithuania lodged on 19 October 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Saulius Paulikas, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Skuodas. He is represented before the Court by Mr   M. Kepenis, a lawyer practising in Klaipėda. The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     The applicant was a traffic police officer in the Skuodas Region. 4.     On 7 November 2007 a car driven by the applicant hit three children in the village of Aleksandrija, in the Skuodas Region. Two of the children died at the scene and the third child died later that day in the hospital. The applicant left the scene of the crash immediately. A criminal investigation was opened the same day. 5.     The following morning the applicant turned himself in to the police. He was detained on remand and suspended from his post as a police officer. On 29 December 2007 the applicant was charged with breaching traffic rules by driving under the influence of alcohol which resulted in the death of other persons (Article 281 § 6 of the Criminal Code) and leaving the scene without helping persons whose lives were in danger (Article 144 of the Criminal Code). 6.     The accident attracted considerable media attention. In the following days, the biggest newspaper in the country Lietuvos rytas and several other newspapers published multiple articles on their front pages and websites. One article in Lietuvos rytas , entitled “A police officer’s BMW crushed fourth-graders” ( Policijos patrulio BMW traiškė ketvirtokus ), interviewed several residents of the village who had been present at the time of the accident, and stated that “it is suspected that the car was driven by the police officer S. Paulikas” and that “some residents of the village reported having seen S. Paulikas and [his colleague M.K.] drinking earlier that day”. 7.     Another article in Lietuvos rytas interviewed the families, friends and teachers of the children who had been killed; it also stated that “the culprit of the horrific tragedy ( kraupios avarijos kaltininkas ) S. Paulikas gave himself in only after it was no longer possible to detect if he had been driving drunk”. The newspaper also stated that in the past there had been multiple traffic accidents caused by police officers, who almost always escaped responsibility; some of those past events were recounted in detail and others were only briefly mentioned. In subsequent publications, the applicant’s parents were interviewed and expressed their condolences to the victims’ families. 8.     A few days after the accident, the Minister of Interior publicly stated: “This is not the first time when police officers, who are supposed to stop traffic violations, cause terrible accidents. If I do not receive any reaction from the Police Commissioner General, ... I am ready to resign from my post.” 9.     Several other prominent politicians questioned who should be held responsible for the growing number of traffic accidents and deaths caused by police officers, many suggesting that both the Commissioner General and the Minister of the Interior should resign. 10.     On 12 November 2007 (five days after the accident), both those officials resigned. In an official statement issued that same day, the President of Lithuania stated: “These past days the entire Lithuania shares the pain of the three families who have lost their children in an accident, caused by a police officer. That day was not only the day of their tragedy but also the reflection of the serious crisis within the police force. ... The lost lives of children, the crime committed by an officer and its circumstances require clear answers and determined solutions. It cannot be tolerated that crimes committed by officers are justified or punished by relatively mild sentences. A police officer must feel the responsibility more than an ordinary citizen and must by his own actions show an example to the society because he has been authorised by the State to protect the public order and guarantee security. A crime committed by an officer cannot be a simple statistical fact. It must be thoroughly examined and especially strictly punished ( kruopščiai ištirtas ir itin griežtai įvertintas ). ...” The rest of the statement discussed the structural problems within the police force and urged all police officers to act in accordance with their mandate. 11.     On 31 January 2008 the Klaipėda District Court began the examination of the applicant’s case. In several hearings the court heard the following testimonies: the applicant, his colleague who had been in the same car at the time of the accident, another colleague who had been driving in a different car and had helped the applicant leave the scene of the accident, other colleagues who had seen the applicant before or soon after the accident, the waitress from the restaurant where the applicant and his colleague had had lunch before the accident, the parents of the children who had been killed, residents of the village who had witnessed the accident, and several court-appointed experts. During the proceedings the applicant admitted that he had driven the car and that the three children had died as a result of the accident. However, he claimed that he had not been drunk and that he had not exceeded the speed limit; he argued that the accident had occurred due to the weather conditions and the reckless actions of some of the children. 12.     All the hearings were public and several newspapers reported on the testimonies. In a number of publications the applicant was called “a killer of children” ( vaikų žudikas ) and mocked for “having suddenly lost his memory” ( staiga sutriko atmintis ) when testifying in court. The colleagues who testified in favour of the applicant were collectively called “defenders of the children’s killer” ( vaikų žudiko užtarėjai ) who were “trying to get him off” ( bando išsukti ). The newspapers also expressed condolences to the children’s families who had to “relive the cruel moments”. Excerpts of testimonies of many witnesses, both in favour and against the applicant, as well as the applicant’s final words, were reprinted word-for-word. 13.     On 17 March 2008 the Klaipėda District Court found the applicant guilty of both charges. The court established that the applicant had caused the accident under the influence of alcohol. It examined video recordings from the restaurant where the applicant and his colleague had had lunch before the accident, showing that the two men each drank half a bottle of vodka. Several witnesses (the waitress from the restaurant, some of the applicant’s colleagues, and people who were present during the accident) also confirmed that the applicant looked and sounded drunk. A court-appointed expert stated that after consuming such an amount of vodka, the alcohol concentration in the applicant’s blood must have definitely been above the legally permitted threshold of 0.4‰. The court also noted that even though the applicant’s blood and urine samples had not detected any alcohol, they were not reliable because they had been taken more than 17   hours after the accident. The court held that since the applicant had deliberately hid from the authorities during that period, he could not use this to his own advantage. 14.     The Klaipėda District Court also established that at the time of the accident the applicant’s car had been going at the speed of at least 105   km/h. A court-appointed expert examined the tyre traces on the location of the accident and the damage done to near-by objects, and re ‑ created the events. The applicant’s colleague, who was driving in the car behind the applicant, testified that he himself had been going at around 100   km/h but could not keep up with the applicant. Several people who had been present at the accident also stated that the noise made by the applicant’s car indicated a very high speed. The court noted that the speed limit in the village was 50 km/h and that this must have been known to the applicant who used to work as a police officer in that area. 15.     Lastly, the Klaipėda District Court held that the applicant, being a police officer, had been obliged by the Law on the Police Activity to provide assistance to persons in danger if he happened to be in the location of an accident but he had not shown any interest in the state of the three   children and had not called an ambulance, but instead fled immediately. 16.     The court found no circumstances mitigating the applicant’s responsibility. However, it noted several aggravating circumstances: the applicant had been under the influence of alcohol, three people had died as a result of his actions, the victims had been minors, the applicant had fled from the accident and he had not expressed remorse and attempted to mislead the court by providing contradictory testimony. As a result, the Klaipėda District Court held that the applicant’s punishment should be closer to the maximum provided by law (the maximum sentence under Article 281 § 6 of the Criminal Code was ten years of imprisonment, and under Article 144 of the Criminal Code – two   years of imprisonment). He was given a consolidated sentence of ten   years of imprisonment, prohibited from driving a vehicle for three years, and ordered to pay a total of 3,000,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 870,000 euros (EUR)) in non-pecuniary damages to the families of the three   children. 17.     Reporting on the sentence, Lietuvos rytas quoted excerpts of the judgment and published a brief statement by the mother of one of the children, who expressed overall satisfaction with the judgment but stated that criminal laws should be changed in order to provide for stricter punishments. 18.     The applicant appealed against the judgment. Among other things, he argued that he had not received a fair trial because of the media campaign against him. He claimed that the media ridiculed and discouraged the witnesses who testified in his favour and that the journalists and high-level State officials had urged the court to order the strictest possible sentence. The applicant claimed that this had prevented the first-instance court from objectively examining his case. 19.     On 5 December 2008 the Klaipėda Regional Court partly amended the first-instance judgment. It upheld the lower court’s findings concerning the applicant’s drunkenness and the speed of his car. However, the Klaipėda Regional Court accepted the applicant’s argument that the age of the victims should not be considered an aggravating circumstance because the crime had not been intentional. Accordingly, the Klaipėda Regional Court reduced the consolidated sentence to nine years of imprisonment. The court also considered that the amount of non-pecuniary damages awarded by the first-instance court had been excessive and not reasonably related to the applicant’s means. Instead it awarded a total of LTL   900,000 (EUR   261,000) to the three families. The prohibition to drive a vehicle for three years was upheld. 20.     In response to the applicant’s complaints concerning the lack of a fair trial, the Klaipėda Regional Court stated that the interest of the media in the case was understandable due to its sensitive nature and that the media could not be prevented from reporting on public hearings. However, the court held that the first-instance judgment had been well-reasoned and based on reliable evidence, so there were no grounds to find that the judges had been influenced by the media publications or statements of any officials. 21.     On 8 May 2009 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s cassation appeal and upheld the judgment of the Klaipėda Regional Court. It stated that the appellate court had adequately examined the applicant’s complaints concerning fair trial and that there was no need to re-examine them. 22.     In January 2015 the applicant was released on probation. COMPLAINTS 23.     The applicant complains under Articles 6 § 1 and 6 § 2 of the Convention that he did not receive a fair trial. He submits that the media branded him “a killer of children” before he was officially found guilty, that the witnesses who testified in his favour were publicly ridiculed, and that the highest-level State officials urged the courts to punish the applicant with the strictest available sentence. As a result, he contends that his right to be presumed innocent was breached and that his trial and the sentence imposed were unfair. 24.     The applicant also complains under Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 6, that his status as a police officer was unfairly taken into consideration by the domestic courts when determining his guilt and setting the sentence.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the statements of public officials and the media coverage of his case?   2.     In particular, was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article   6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case (see Butkevičius v.   Lithuania , no. 48297/99, § 50, ECHR 2002 ‑ II (extracts))?   3.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the ground of his status as a police officer, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 6?