CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 février 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   81 5.2.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT RAMANAUSKAS v. LITHUANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Ramanauskas v. Lithuania (application no. 74420/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 30,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of all damages, costs and expenses. (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.   Principal facts   Kęstas Ramanauskas is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Kaišiadorys (Lithuania). He worked as a prosecutor in the Kaišiadorys region.   The applicant submitted that in late 1998 and early 1999 he had been approached by AZ, a person previously unknown to him, through VS, a private acquaintance. AZ – who, in fact, worked for a special anti-corruption police unit of the Ministry of Interior (STT) – offered the applicant a bribe of 3,000   US   dollars   (USD) in return for a promise to obtain the acquittal of a third person. The applicant having initially refused, AZ subsequently reiterated the offer a number of times before the applicant agreed.   The Government submitted that VS and AZ had approached the applicant and negotiated the conditions for the bribe on their own initiative, before the authorities were informed.   On an unspecified date AZ informed the STT that the applicant had agreed to accept a bribe and, on 27 January 1999, the Deputy Prosecutor General authorised VS and AZ to simulate criminal acts of bribery.   On 28 January 1999 the applicant accepted USD   1,500 from AZ. On 11   February 1999 AZ paid the applicant a further USD   1,000.   The same day, the Prosecutor General brought a criminal case against the applicant for accepting a bribe, under the then Article 282 of the Criminal Code.   On 29 August 2000 the applicant was convicted of accepting a bribe of USD 2,500 from AZ and sentenced to 19 months and six days’ imprisonment. VS was not examined during the trial. The judgment was upheld on appeal and the applicant’s cassation appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court which found that the evidence corroborated the applicant's guilt, which he himself had acknowledged. Once his guilt had been established, the question of whether there had been any outside influence on his intention to commit the offence had become irrelevant.   On 31 January 2002 the applicant was released on licence and, in January 2003, his conviction was expunged.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 17 August 2001 and declared admissible on 26 April 2005.   On 19 September 2006 the Chamber to which the case had originally been assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Article 30 [2] of the Convention.   A public hearing took place in the Human Rights building, Strasbourg on 28 March 2007.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (British), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Christos Rozakis (Greek), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese) Rıza Türmen (Turkish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), András Baka (Hungarian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Stanislav Pavlovschi (Moldovan), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Renate Jaeger (German), judges , and also Michael O’Boyle , Deputy Registrar .         3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant complained that he was incited to commit a criminal offence by the State authorities and that, as a result, he was unfairly convicted of bribery. He further alleged that the principle of equality of arms and the rights of the defence had been infringed in that, during the trial, neither the courts nor the parties had had the opportunity to examine VS. He relied on Article   6.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court considered that the national authorities could not be exempted from their responsibility for the actions of police officers by simply arguing that, although carrying out police duties, the officers were acting “in a private capacity”. It was particularly important that the authorities should have assumed responsibility, as the initial phase of the operation took place in the absence of any legal framework or judicial authorisation. Furthermore, by authorising VS and AZ to simulate acts of bribery and by exempting AZ from all criminal responsibility, the authorities legitimised the preliminary phase ex post facto and made use of its results.   Moreover, no satisfactory explanation had been provided as to what reasons or personal motives could have led AZ to approach the applicant on his own initiative without bringing the matter to the attention of his superiors, or why he was not prosecuted for his acts during that preliminary phase. On that point, the Government simply referred to the fact that all the relevant documents had been destroyed.   The actions complained of by the applicant were therefore attributable to the authorities.   The actions of VS and AZ also went beyond the mere passive investigation of existing criminal activity: there was no evidence that the applicant had committed any offences beforehand, in particular corruption-related offences; all the meetings between the applicant and AZ took place on the latter's initiative; and, the applicant seemed to have been subjected to blatant prompting on the part of VS and AZ to perform criminal acts, although there was no objective evidence to suggest that he had been intending to engage in such activity.   The Court observed that, throughout the proceedings, the applicant maintained that he had been incited to commit the offence. Accordingly, the domestic authorities and courts should at the very least have undertaken a thorough examination of whether the prosecuting authorities had incited the commission of a criminal act. To that end, they should have established in particular the reasons why the operation had been mounted, the extent of the police's involvement in the offence and the nature of any incitement or pressure to which the applicant had been subjected. That was especially important having regard to the fact that VS was never called as a witness in the case since he could not be traced. The applicant should have had the opportunity to state his case on each of those points.   However, the domestic authorities denied that there had been any police incitement and took no steps at judicial level to carry out a serious examination of the applicant's allegations. More specifically, they did not make any attempt to clarify the role played by the protagonists in the applicant’s case, despite the fact that the applicant's conviction was based on the evidence obtained as a result of the police incitement of which he complained.   The Court noted the Supreme Court’s finding that, once the applicant’s guilt had been established, the question whether there had been any outside influence on his intention to commit the offence became irrelevant. However, a confession to an offence committed as a result of incitement could not eradicate either the incitement or its effects.   The Court concluded that the actions of AZ and VS had the effect of inciting the applicant to commit the offence of which he was convicted and that there was no indication that the offence would have been committed without their intervention. There had therefore been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 6 § 3 (d)   The Court did not consider it necessary to carry out a separate examination under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the applicant's complaint that the proceedings were unfair.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [2] Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects.   [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.