CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 juillet 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 2 July 2019   SECOND SECTION Application no. 28345/18 Arūnas VALANČIUS against Lithuania lodged on 7 June 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the alleged unlawfulness and arbitrariness of detention. As submitted by the applicant, on 6 January 2012 he was detained by police officers in their car for approximately five hours, without being informed of the reasons for his detention and without any written record of the detention. In addition, while he was detained, the officers pressured him to sign the minutes of a meeting of a credit union, of which he was a member, agreeing to change its director. In 2017 the applicant complained about the aforementioned circumstances to prosecutors and courts, asking them to institute criminal proceedings against the relevant police officers. However, the prosecutors and courts, relying essentially on the officers’ testimonies, ruled that no unlawful acts had been committed. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the deprivation of the applicant’s liberty on 6 January 2012 lawful and devoid of arbitrariness, as required by Article   5   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the deprivation of liberty based on a court order and was there a written record of detention (see Anguelova v.   Bulgaria , no.   38361/97, § 154, ECHR 2002 ‑ IV, and Creangă v. Romania [GC], no.   29226/03, § 84, 23 February 2012)?   2.     Did the deprivation of liberty fall under any of the sub-paragraph(s) of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Was the applicant informed of the reasons for his arrest, as required by Article 5 § 2 of the Convention (see Abdolkhani and Karimnia v. Turkey , no. 30471/08, § 136, 22 September 2009)?