Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania
6 April 2009
Facts
The applicant appealed to the court requesting that the penalty imposed on him by the deputy director of the Lukiškės Remand Centre and Prison be revoked and that the administration be obliged to change the applicant's living conditions by allowing him to live in a cell with other inmates.
Complaint
The appeal is based on the fact that the court of first instance fundamentally violated the rules of procedural law governing the institution of evidence in administrative proceedings and, as a result, the case was decided incorrectly.
Court‘s ruling
Evidence is presented by the parties and other participants in the proceedings. If necessary, the court may propose to submit additional evidence or request the necessary documents. At the request of the parties, the court shall request evidence that the parties themselves cannot obtain.
In the present case, the applicant requested that the Prison Department disclose the materials of the investigation into his complaint. The court ordered the disclosure of these materials. The applicant did not submit any other requests to the court for the disclosure of evidence. The applicant does not specify what specific evidence relevant to the case the court could or should have requested.
During the court hearing, the explanations of the parties, including the applicant and his representatives, witness statements and written evidence were examined. The participants in the proceedings did not raise any objections to the minutes of the court hearing. The appellant's arguments that the court violated the principle of immediacy were rejected as unfounded. The court relied on the totality of the evidence examined.
The applicant's complaint was dismissed.