CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 13 December 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 16031/18 Olusegun Bamise AREWA against Lithuania lodged on 30 March 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In July 2014 the Lithuanian authorities charged the applicant, a Nigerian citizen, with money laundering and forgery of documents. He was initially detained, but later released. The criminal investigation is still pending. The same year the applicant’s Lithuanian residence permit was not renewed on the ground that he was considered to be threat to national security. However, he was ordered to stay in Lithuania and periodically register with the police. In August 2015 a son was born to the applicant and a Lithuanian citizen. The child has a Lithuanian passport. The applicant’s complaints that criminal investigation had been unjustifiably long were dismissed by the domestic courts’ final decision of 11   December 2017. Under Articles   6 and 8 of the Convention the applicant complains about the length of the criminal investigation and of the fact that, because of its length, he is in a precarious situation, which negatively impacts his private and family life. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to a trial within reasonable time, provided for by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see McFarlane v. Ireland [GC], no.   31333/06, §   140, 10   September 2010, and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no.   76943/11, §   143, 29   November 2016, with further references)?   2.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life, provided for by Article   8 of the Convention (see, more recently, Guliyev and Sheina v. Russia , no.   29790/14, §§   46 and   49 ‑ 51, 17   April 2018, with further references)?   The Court refers, in particular, to the applicant’s complaint that the criminal investigation has been unjustifiably long, which prevented the applicant from legalising his situation in Lithuania in order to find employment and get married.   The Government are invited to provide the Court information about the most recent state of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and whether the restrictions complained of are still in force or have been lifted and, if so, then when.