CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mars 2019

.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 20 March 2019   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 49419/18 Vytautas BABKAITIS against Lithuania lodged on 9 October 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of the pre-trial investigation which in respect of the applicant lasted for nearly eight years and was terminated because the criminal proceedings became time-barred. The applicant lodged a civil claim for damages. The first-instance court awarded the applicant EUR   1,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, finding that the complexity of the case had justified its length. By a ruling of 18   July 2018 the Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant’s appeal on points of law, in which he argued a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was the length of the pre-trial investigation in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no.   25444/94, §   67, ECHR 1999 ‑ II, Kalēja v. Latvia , no.   22059/08, §§   36-48, 5   October 2017 and, most recently, Garbuz v. Ukraine , no.   72681/10, §   52, 19   February 2019)?