CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 mars 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 40 March 2002 Butkevičius v. Lithuania - 48297/99 Judgment 26.3.2002 [Section II] Article 6 Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Statements made by the Chairman of Parliament and the Prosecutor General in connection with criminal proceedings against a Government Minister: violation Facts : In August 1997 the Parliament (Seimas) authorised criminal proceedings against the applicant, who was Minister for Defence. He was charged with obtaining property by deception. On the same day, it was reported in a newspaper article that the Prosecutor General had confirmed that he had “enough sound evidence of the guilt” of the applicant. Over the next few days, the same newspaper published articles in which it was reported that the Chairman of the Parliament had stated, firstly, that he had “no doubt” that the applicant had accepted a bribe and, secondly, that the applicant “[had taken] the money while promising criminal services”. Some time later, the Chairman of the Parliament was quoted in the newspaper as having referred to the applicant as a “bribetaker”. The applicant was subsequently convicted. Law : Article 6 § 2 – The impugned statements were made in a context independent of the criminal proceedings. However, while the fact that the applicant was an important political figure required the highest State officials to keep the public informed, this did not mean that any choice of words by the officials was justified. The statements, except for one, were made just a few days after the applicant’s arrest and it was particularly important at that initial stage not to make any public allegation which could be interpreted as confirming his guilt in the opinion of important public officials. While the statement of the Prosecutor General gave some cause for concern, it could be interpreted as a mere assertion that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt by a court and, thus, to justify the application to Parliament for permission to bring criminal proceedings. Of more concern were the statements made by the Chairman of the Parliament, having particular regard to the fact that Parliament had lifted the applicant’s parliamentary immunity to enable criminal proceedings to be brought. The references to “bribery” were not irrelevant, as the Government maintained, since the media and the general public had frequently interpreted the facts as bribery and it had not been contended that the Chairman was not referring to the proceedings in question. The remarks could therefore be interpreted as confirming the Chairman’s view that the applicant had committed the offences. While the remarks were brief and made on separate occasions, they amounted to declarations by a public official of the applicant’s guilt, which served to encourage the public to believe him guilty and prejudged the assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also found violations of Article 5 § 1 and   § 4 in connection with the applicant’s detention on remand. Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant € 5,700 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs and expense.   © 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