Верховный суд Литвы
14 июля 2015 года
Facts
The plaintiffs seeked compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage in court. The defendants are the Republic of Lithuania, represented by the Ministry of Justice and the Prosecutor General's Office.
Complaint
In their appeal, the plaintiffs request that the regional court's ruling be overturned. They claim that the court improperly assessed the evidence and disagree with the amount of damages awarded.
Court‘s ruling
According to the provisions of the Civil Code, damage caused by unlawful conviction, unlawful arrest, unlawful application of preventive measures, unlawful detention, unlawful application of procedural coercive measures, unlawful imposition of an administrative penalty (arrest) shall be compensated in full by the state, regardless of the fault of the pre-trial investigation officers, prosecutors, and the court. According to the practice of the Court, a plaintiff claiming compensation for damage of this nature has the burden of proving the unlawful actions of the officials and/or the court, the causal link, and the damage (losses). If at least one of the conditions of liability is not proven, compensation for damage is not possible, as there is no legal basis for compensation.
In its practice, the Court adheres to the principle that an acquittal does not in itself constitute grounds for presuming that the criminal proceedings and all procedural actions related to the criminal prosecution were unlawful. A similar position is taken in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights.
When deciding on the civil liability of the state for the actions of law enforcement officials, it is necessary in each case to determine whether the criminal prosecution of a specific person was initiated on the basis of sufficient evidence to suspect that they had committed a crime; a significant circumstance in terms of civil liability is the basis for the termination of the pre-trial investigation or criminal case, or the acquittal of the person; it is also significant how the legality of proceedings is assessed in accordance with the rules of procedure. The state may also be held civilly liable on the grounds that law enforcement officials have failed to fulfill their general duty to act with care and diligence.
Not every violation of the law is recognized as an unlawful act that could give rise to civil liability on the part of the state. In this sense, to establish unlawful actions, it must be indisputably proven and recognized that the pre-trial investigation officers, prosecutors, or the court made a mistake that had a significant and decisive impact on the violation of the plaintiff's rights in the criminal proceedings.
When determining the amount of non-pecuniary damage for the unlawful application of a procedural coercive measure – arrest – the court must take into account the following circumstances: the circumstances of the violation of the right to liberty (the duration of the arrest, the nature of the unlawful actions of the state authorities that caused the violation, the nature of the unlawful actions that caused the violation, specific shortcomings of the decisions taken during the criminal proceedings, etc.); the consequences of detention for personal life (whether the detained person had a family, minor children, or had special activities that were interrupted by the detention); the consequences of the arrest on the person's health, including mental health; the consequences of the arrest on professional life; circumstances that could reduce the amount of compensation payable, including the economic situation of the victim and the state, and the fault of the victim.
After assessing the circumstances of the specific case, the Court upheld the appeal.