CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 September 2025   SECOND SECTION Applications nos.: 5988/24 and 10353/24 Paulius JUCIUS against Lithuania and Paulius JUCIUS against Lithuania lodged on 21 February 2024 and 27 March 2024 respectively communicated on 3 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicant’s provisional detention and the seizure of his assets during criminal proceedings. On an unspecified date the Financial Crimes Investigation Service (“the FCIS”) opened a pre-trial investigation concerning suspicions of money laundering committed in an organised group (Article 216 § 1 and Article   25 §   3 of the Criminal Code). Several potential suspects were identified, including the applicant. At around 6 a.m. on 15 November 2023 officers of the FCIS arrived at the applicant’s home, officially notified him that he was suspected of money laundering in the amount of 372,000 euros (EUR) and carried out a search of his home which had been authorised by a court. At 10   a.m. the FCIS presented him with a decision, taken by an investigating officer of the FCIS and drawn up on that same day, to place him in provisional detention (Article 140 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). That decision indicated, inter alia , that the applicant may interfere with the ongoing investigation, hide or destroy evidence or influence witnesses and other suspects. It also stated that there had been no possibility of urgently requesting a court to authorise his detention on remand because the notification of suspicion had to be presented to him, he had to be questioned, and court-authorised searches had to be carried out. That decision was approved by the prosecutor on the same day. The applicant was released from detention at 9.44 a.m. on 17   November 2023. On 12 December 2023 he lodged a complaint with the pre-trial judge of the Kaunas District Court, in which he argued that his detention had been unlawful and unjustified, but on 11 January 2024 the judge dismissed it. On 16 November 2023 the prosecutor ordered the seizure of the applicant’s two bank accounts for six months, in order to secure a possible civil claim, confiscation or extended confiscation of property. He was allowed to use EUR 400 per month. On 4 December 2023 he asked the prosecutor to be allowed to use EUR 2,000 per month or another amount proportionate to his actual expenses. He submitted that he had a child born in June 2023 and that his income was the family’s only source of income. He enclosed documents showing his family’s expenses in respect of tax, utility, insurance and mortgage payments and his child’s needs. On 21 December 2023 the prosecutor dismissed that request and on 23   January 2024 the pre-trial judge upheld the prosecutor’s decision. The seizure of the applicant’s bank accounts was extended every six months until 16 May 2025. On 19 May 2025 the prosecutor asked the pre-trial judge to order the seizure of the applicant’s bank accounts for another six months, allowing him to use EUR 400 per month from one of his accounts and EUR 2,500 from another. The pre-trial judge allowed the request on the same day, and later the appellate court upheld that decision. They found that the prosecutor had missed the time-limit for requesting the extension but held that the law nonetheless allowed the courts to order such a measure. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his provisional detention was not in accordance with the law because the conditions laid out in the Code of Criminal Procedure when someone could be detained without a court order were not met and the detention was not necessary in the circumstances. He also complains that the seizure of his assets failed to strike a fair balance between the general interest and his and his family’s basic needs, that the application of that measure after 16 May 2025 was not in accordance with the law, and that the domestic authorities failed to duly address his arguments in those respects. He raises the latter complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant exhaust the effective domestic remedies, as required under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, with regard to the complaint concerning his provisional detention? In particular, after the provisional detention was found by the pre-trial judge to have been in accordance with the law, was it open for the applicant to seek monetary compensation in relation to that detention and would such a claim have had reasonable prospects of success (see, mutatis mutandis , Selahattin Demirtaş v. Turkey (no. 2) [GC], no. 14305/17, §§ 205-14, 22 December 2020)? The parties are asked to provide relevant examples of domestic case-law.   2.     Did the applicant’s provisional detention from 10 a.m. on 15   November 2023 to 9.44 a.m. on 17 November 2023 comply with the requirements of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the detention ordered in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law (see Narbutas v.   Lithuania , no.   14139/21, §§ 191-204, 19 December 2023, and the cases cited therein)?   3.     Did the seizure of the applicant’s assets comply with the requirements of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention during the entire period of its application? In particular, was it in accordance with the law and did it strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the applicant’s fundamental rights (ibid., §§   313-32, and the cases cited therein)?