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. 5862/19 Oleg STEPANOV against Lithuania lodged on 19 January 2019 STATEMENT OF FACTS In 2012 the applicant was convicted to two years’ imprisonment. He did not flee from the law enforcement authorities. Instead, he openly lived in Lithuania and later in the United Kingdom, without hiding his whereabouts. In 2014, the Lithuanian authorities had nevertheless announced his search. In 2017 the applicant asked the courts to release him from serving the sentence, on the ground that under Lithuanian law the sentence of two years’ imprisonment had to be enforced within three years from the date it was pronounced. The applicant’s lawyers’ requests to the law enforcement authorities to disclose concrete steps taken to search for the applicant remained unanswered. In 2018 the courts held that although the Lithuanian authorities had not been sufficiently diligent when searching for the applicant, that fact alone was not enough to release the applicant from serving his sentence. The applicant complains under Article   5 §   1 of the Convention that he had been deprived of his liberty without legal basis, since he had never been avoiding serving the sentence but the Lithuanian authorities simply failed to take steps to enforce it. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention, in view of the fact that in 2018 the courts refused to release him from serving the sentence notwithstanding the applicant’s statement that he had never been hiding from the authorities after his conviction in 2012 (see Porowski v. Poland , no.   34458/03, §§   109, 110, 115 and 116, 21   March 2017, and Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos.   10211/12 and   27505/14, §§   126 and 135, 4 December 2018, with further references)?   The Government are requested to provide detail account of steps, including supporting documents, taken by the Lithuanian institutions to enforce the liberty deprivation sentence on the applicant (also see Akelienė v. Lithuania , no.   54917/13, §   80 in fine , 16   October 2018 and paragraph no.   3 of the concurring opinion of Judge Bošnjak, joined by Judge Vehabović).