CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 avril 2021

.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 } Published on 10 May 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 30782/20 Renaldas PAULIUKEVIČIUS against Lithuania lodged on 7 July 2020 communicated on 19 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2004 the applicant, who at that time was seventeen years old, in Lithuania was convicted for theft. He was sentenced to one year of imprisonment, but the execution of the sentence was deferred. After the applicant committed a new crime – light health impairment and breach of public order, his arrest was ordered. Yet, given that as early as in 2005 the applicant had left for the United Kingdom, he could not be apprehended. In 2006 the European Arrest Warrant was issued and in 2013 the applicant was temporarily arrested in the United Kingdom. However, the Westminster Magistrate’s Court refused the applicant’s extradition, referring to the passage of time since the applicant had committed the criminal offences, and the applicant having created a family in the United Kingdom, where he had never been hiding from the United Kingdom authorities. In 2017 the Lithuanian authorities issued a new European Arrest Warrant for the applicant. The applicant’s lawyer then asked the Lithuanian courts to release the applicant from obligation to serve his sentence, referring to statute of limitations. By a final ruling of 17   March 2020 the Kaunas Regional Court refused to grant the request. The applicant complains that the Lithuanian courts had erred in establishing facts and applying law when rejecting his request that he be released from obligation to serve his sentence, due to statute of limitations.   QUESTION 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 2020 the courts refused to release him from serving the sentence after his conviction in 2004 (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, 135 and 137, 4   December 2018, with further references)?