CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 janvier 2018

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 4 January 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 31378/15 Erikas ŽVIRBLIS against Lithuania lodged on 19 June 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Erikas Žvirblis, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1985 and is detained in Vilnius. He is represented before the Court by Mr   M. Muksinovas, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was suspected of armed robbery. He was arrested on an unspecified date. On 2   July 2014 the Rokiškis Disctrict Court decided to hear the case on 12   August 2014 and decided to provide the applicant with free legal assistance. On 3   July 2014 the Panevėžys State Guaranteed Legal Aid Service decided that the applicant would be represented by M.B. On 26   August 2014 the Rokiškis District Court found the applicant guilty of armed robbery and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment; he was also ordered to pay – jointly, with another person – 87,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL – approximately 25,197   euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and LTL   25,000 (approximately EUR   7,241) in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage. The applicant pleaded guilty. Following an appeal by the applicant, L.B. was appointed to represent the applicant before the Panevėžys Regional Court. The applicant asked the court to reduce the term of imprisonment and to rule that his guilty plea had constituted a mitigating circumstance. He also submitted that the first ‑ instance court had not taken into account his request to apply the “simplified examination of evidence” ( sutrumpintas įrodymų tyrimas ) procedure. On 19   December 2014 the Panevėžys Regional Court upheld the judgment of the first-instance court. The court held that there were no mitigating circumstances because when the notice of suspicion ( pranešimas apie įtarimą ) had been served on him in 2012, he had stated that no crime had been committed; only after his questioning by the authorities in 2014 had he pleaded guilty. The applicant had been convicted numerous times for previous offences, and the first-instance judgment had thus been lawful. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law. He submitted that he had discussed this course of action with his lawyer, L.B., and that they had agreed that in the event that the appellate court did not allow the appeal she would lodge an appeal on points of law. On 10   January 2015 the applicant sent a letter to L.B. and asked her to lodge an appeal on points of law. On an unspecified date, the applicant wrote another letter to L.B. and asked whether she had lodged an appeal on points of law. It appears that no reply was received. On 9   March 2015 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law by himself. On 31   March 2015 the Supreme Court did not accept it for examination as not meeting the requirements of domestic law. On 10   April 2015 the applicant lodged another appeal on points of law. He explained that he had not been able to reach L.B. and that his first appeal on points of law had consequently had shortcomings; he also applied for the renewal of the time-limit for submitting an appeal on points of law. On 30   April 2015 the Supreme Court decided not to renew the time-limit for submitting an appeal on points of law and stated that it was a person’s own responsibility to ensure the proper implementation of his/her rights and that breached rights could only be remedied if a person had exercised diligence in trying to uphold them. B.     Relevant domestic law Article   51 §   1   (7) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a lawyer’s presence during the examination of a case is obligatory if a person is detained on remand. Article   370 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the time ‑ limit for lodging an appeal on points of law is three months after the date on which the judgment became enforceable. The time-limit may be extended if it was missed for important reasons. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article   6 §   1 and Article   6 §   3   (c) of the Convention that because the State-appointed lawyer failed to submit an appeal on points of law on his behalf, he was not effectively represented and his right of access to court was breached.   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Were the applicant’s right to effective legal assistance and his right of access to court, as guaranteed under Article   6 § 1 and Article   6 §   3 (c) of the Convention, respected, given the fact that no appeal on points of law was lodged by a lawyer on the applicant’s behalf (see Jelcovas v. Lithuania , no.   16913/04, §§   124-125, 19   July 2011, and Vasenin v.   Russia , no.   48023/06, §   145, 21   June 2016)?