CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 décembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 9 December 2020 Published on 11 January 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 41738/19 Rinat NASYROV against Lithuania lodged on 23 July 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a citizen of the Russian Federation where his family lives. He is a business person. In 2019 the Lithuanian authorities opened a pre-trial investigation on suspicion that the applicant had committed a crime of trading influence in order to obtain a Lithuanian multiple-entry visa. He was initially detained, but afterwards released on bail and obliged not to leave Lithuania. In April 2019 the applicant asked the prosecutor to permit him to travel to the Russian Federation for business purposes, and his request was granted. The applicant returned to Lithuania, as he had promised. Upon his return, the permission to leave Lithuania had been quashed and the amount of bail increased – the latter on the applicant’s request, the higher prosecutor and the court having argued that the applicant had no social ties in Lithuania and thus could flee from justice. Under Article   2 of Protocol No.   4 to the Convention the applicant complains that he is unable to leave Lithuania even though he has family in the Russian Federation and business interests therein, which occasionally require his presence in that country.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was any restriction placed on the applicant’s freedom to leave Lithuania, as guaranteed by Article   2 §   2 of Protocol   No.   4 to the Convention?   If so, was that restriction in accordance with law, did it pursue one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in the third paragraph of Article 2 of Protocol No.   4 and was it necessary in a democratic society for the achievement of such an aim (see Rosenger v. Romania , no.   70786/01, §   33, 24   April 2008; Gochev v. Bulgaria , no.   34383/03, §   44, 26   November 2009; and Miażdżyk v. Poland , no. 23592/07, §§ 29-42, 24   January 2012)?   2.     The parties are requested to provide the Court the latest information about the applicant’s criminal proceedings and about the restrictive measures that had been applied to him since the beginning of those proceedings.