CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 juillet 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s7C768949 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } 544 06.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]     Pocius v. Lithuania and Uukauskas v. Lithuania (application nos. 35601/04 and 16965/04)   lithuanian COURTS DECISIONS taken on basis of EVIDENCE NOT DISCLOSED TO APPLICANTs   Unanimously   Violation of Article 6§1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The two cases concern the complaints by the applicants, Vidas Pocius and Robertas   Užukauskas , about the Lithuanian courts having taken decisions in their cases on the basis of classified evidence presented by the police and never disclosed to them.   Both applicants are Lithuanian nationals, born respectively in 1962 and 1972 and living in Kaunas, Lithuania. At the time of the events they held firearms licenses which were revoked by the Lithuanian authorities, in May 2002 and April 2003 respectively. The reason put forth for the licence withdrawal was that both Mr Pocius and Mr Užukauskas were listed in the operational records file which contained information gathered by law-enforcement officers about people potentially considered a danger to society. Mr Pocius and Mr Užukauskas were further asked by the police to hand in their arms in exchange for money. They challenged in court the entry of their names into those operational records and asked for their removal from that database. The courts rejected their requests, basing their decisions on the evidence presented by the police, which they found to be classified and, hence, impossible to disclose to the applicants.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1, Mr Pocius and Mr Užukauskas complained about the proceedings before the courts having been unfair, in particular as a result of them not having had access to the evidence on which the courts’ decisions had been based.   The applications were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights respectively on 16   September   2004 and 28 April 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), Guido Raimondi (Italy), judges , and Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Admissibility   The Court acknowledged that the Lithuanian authorities enjoyed discretion in assessing whether the applicants had been eligible for firearms licences. However, following the revocation of their licenses, Mr Pocius and Mr Užukauskas had attempted, unsuccessfully, to obtain information from the police about exactly what information had been registered about them in the operational records database. The Court found that being listed in an operational records file had an impact on the applicants’ reputation, their right to protection of property and their opportunities to find employment in the private sector, for example as security guards. It concluded that the applicants’ complaints were admissible under Article   6   §   1 as they related to the determination of their civil rights.   Fair hearing (Article 6 § 1)   The Court recalled that, in court proceedings, each party had to be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case under conditions which placed neither of them at a disadvantage vis-à-vis each other. Further, both parties needed to have access to the presented evidence and/or observations by other party.   The entitlement to disclose evidence, however, was not an absolute right. In some cases, it was legitimate to withhold evidence from the defence in order to preserve the fundamental rights of another individual or to safeguard an important public interest. That said, only strictly necessary measures were permissible.   While the Court accepted the Lithuanian Government’s position that documents constituting State secrets might be disclosed only to those with relevant authorisation, it noted that Lithuanian law and judicial practice provided that such information could not be used as evidence in court against anyone, unless it had been declassified. In addition, it could not be the only evidence on which courts based their decisions.   The data in the operational files in respect of both Mr Pocius and Mr Užukauskas had been of decisive importance for their cases given that the courts had based their decisions primarily on the information contained in them. Had Mr Pocius and Mr Užukauskas known the content of those records they might have been able to persuade the judges that the police had acted without good reason and thus to have their names removed from those files. The judges, however, had examined behind closed door those records, which had been presented by the police and had constituted the only evidence of the applicants’ alleged danger to society. Accordingly, the decision-making process had not complied with the requirement of adversarial proceedings or equality of arms and had not incorporated adequate safeguards to protect the interests of the applicants.   There had, therefore, been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Lithuania had to pay to both applicants separately 3,500   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage, and to Mr   Užukauskas EUR   1,290 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 or Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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] Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution .