CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 juin 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 109 June 2008 Miliniene v. Lithuania - 74355/01 Judgment 24.6.2008 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Conviction of the offence of bribery investigated upon a complaint and with collaboration of a private individual: no violation   Facts : The applicant worked as a judge. In June 1998 she was approached by a male acquaintance, with whom, she alleged, she merely discussed the sale of her car. Having secretly recorded their conversation, the acquaintance lodged a complaint with a special anti-corruption police unit stating that the applicant had demanded a payoff, in the form of a new car, in return for admitting and deciding his civil claim in his favour. The Deputy Prosecutor General authorised a “Criminal Conduct Simulation Model” for a period of one year. In October 1998 the applicant was apprehended in her office whilst receiving another bribe from the acquaintance. In 2000 she was convicted of accepting a large bribe and attempting to buy off State officials. She was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, banned from State service for five years, and had her property confiscated. The court based the conviction mostly on the recordings made by the acquaintance when implementing the model, finding that she had taken a total of USD 10,500 in personal bribes, as well as USD 1,000 to buy-off certain higher court judges. It was established that, in return, she had drafted his civil claim, had made the necessary arrangements to be appointed as the judge in his case, and had started examining it. When dismissing her cassation appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the preliminary information on her readiness to accept a bribe had been confirmed in that she had immediately accepted the offer without any outside pressure. Such an offer could not be considered active pressure to commit an offence. Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that, contrary to the applicant’s arguments, the police officers could not have discontinued their investigations once the applicant had received the first money instalment, because for the purposes of characterising her acts it was necessary to establish if she would keep her promise and decide the case in favour of the plaintiff. Law : There was no evidence that the applicant had committed any offences beforehand, in particular corruption-related offences. However, the initiative in the case had been taken by a private individual. To the extent that he had had police backing to offer the applicant considerable financial inducements and had been given technical equipment to record their conversations, it was clear that the police had influenced the course of events. However, the Court did not find the police’s role to have been abusive, given their obligation to verify criminal complaints and the importance of thwarting the corrosive effect of judicial corruption on the rule of law in a democratic society. The determinative factor was not the police’s role, but the conduct of the individual in question and the applicant. To this extent, the Court accepted that, on balance, the police could be said to have “joined” the criminal activity rather than to have initiated it. Their actions had thus remained within the bounds of undercover work rather than that of agents provocateurs in possible breach of Article 6 § 1. Furthermore, the applicant had been able to put clear entrapment arguments before the domestic courts and a reasoned response had been given to them. There were clearly good reasons to commence the investigation after the individual concerned had contacted the police. It had been established that he had no special relationship with the applicant, from which it could be inferred that he had no ulterior motive in denouncing her. The model had been lawfully conceived and put into action. Moreover it had been adequately supervised by the prosecution, even if court supervision would have been more appropriate for such a veiled system of investigation. The applicant had had full opportunity to challenge the authenticity and accuracy of the evidence against her. Indeed, she had made no specific complaint to the Court of a lack of adversarial proceedings or denial of equality of arms. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). See also Ramanauskas v. Lithuania [GC], in Information Note no. 105.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes