Back

Legal reforms after innocent hotel director was jailed for 14 months without proper evidence

Jėčius v. Lithuania  | 2000

Legal reforms after innocent hotel director was jailed for 14 months without proper evidence

The Jėčius case was very important from the legal point of view and revealed a serious problem as regards the legality of the preventative detention, as well as a denied access to a court and the right to defence.

Danutė Jočienė, Judge of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania, former judge of the European Court of Human Rights, writing in "The Impact of the ECHR on Democratic Change in Central and Eastern Europe"

Background

Juozas Jėčius was a hotel director. He was detained for over 14 months whilst awaiting trial for murder. He complained that there was no evidence connecting him with the crime. Nevertheless, the authorities refused to release him. When the case eventually came to trial, Mr Jėčius was acquitted.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The Strasbourg court ruled that there had never been any proper evidence linking Mr Jėčius to the crime. Furthermore, certain periods of his detention had never been ordered by any Lithuanian court. In these circumstances, the authorities had violated Mr Jėčius’ right to liberty.

Inheriting the Soviet legal system, Lithuania was struck by the fact that the preventative, lengthy or unjustified detention on remand had not been in line with the requirements of Article 5 of the convention [the right to liberty]. It was also not legally possible to question the lawfulness of the detention. These problems had been identified by the ECHR in the first Lithuanian cases lost in Strasbourg. After twenty years of the application of the convention in Lithuania the previously mentioned problems under Article 5 (and 6) of the convention have, in principle, disappeared. This was due to the efforts of national courts to guarantee the convention rights at a domestic level.

Danutė Jočienė, Judge of the Constitutional Court of Lithuania, former judge of the European Court of Human Rights, writing in "The Impact of the ECHR on Democratic Change in Central and Eastern Europe"

Follow-up

Following the court’s judgment, in 2002 the parliament adopted a new code on criminal procedure partly to improve compliance with Strasbourg case law. The law changed the rules on pre-trial detention, to help prevent this situation from happening again. It listed circumstances when pre-trial detention could be justified; set rules about the time limits of such detention; and established a procedure where a detainee could challenge it in court.


Related examples

Illegal detention of innocent man and reforms to protect the right to liberty

Sergey Solovyev lost three years of his life in a cell, after being falsely accused of manslaughter. At one point his detention was extended without an order from a judge and contrary to Russian law. The European court ruled that Mr Solvyev’s right to liberty had been breached. Russia changed its criminal laws to prevent unlawful detention orders and protect the right to liberty.

Read more

Almost three years’ imprisonment for a crime he did not commit – and reforms to protect liberty

Wrongfully accused of murder and attempted burglary, Andrzej Leszczak was detained for almost three years before finally being acquitted at trial. The European court ruled that the Polish authorities had not given proper reasons for holding Mr Leszczak and had not explored different ways of making sure he attended his trial. Following a series of such cases, Poland changed laws to protect...

Read more

Man given 3 months’ detention for a crime he didn’t commit - and reforms to protect the right to liberty

Locked in a windowless cell, I. I. spent 3 months in pre-trial detention for a crime he did not commit. After he developed various illnesses, the charges against I.I. were dropped because of a lack of evidence and he was released. Following a series of similar cases, the law in Bulgaria was changed to protect people’s right to liberty.

Read more

Arbitrary detention in psychiatric hospital leads to reforms to protect liberty

Frits Winterwerp was detained in a psychiatric hospital. He said that he was not mentally ill and he should be released. However, he was repeatedly prevented from making his case in the Dutch courts, which kept extending his detention without hearing from him. The European court ruled this had violated his right to liberty. Reforms were made to protect people in Mr Winterwerp’s situation.

Read more

Reforms to prevent detention without a court’s permission

Allar Harkmann was arrested and detained, without a court hearing his case or examining the legality of his detention. He was only released after 15 days. The Strasbourg court ruled that the failure to have Mr Harkmann’s detention promptly reviewed by a judge, and the lack of any opportunity for him to obtain compensation, had violated his right to liberty.

Read more

Woman’s 4-year detention without trial leads to freedom protections

Josette Prencipe was in her mid-sixties when she was arrested and detained for almost 4 years, without facing trial. She was accused of making illegal bank transfers. The Strasbourg court ruled that the authorities had breached Mrs Prencipe’s right to liberty. The case triggered a series of reforms, including a new time limit on pre-trial detention.

Read more

Changes to legal procedures after detainee denied the opportunity to make his case in court

Peter Frommelt asked to be released whilst awaiting trial for financial crimes. When this was considered on appeal, neither he nor his lawyer were allowed to make any legal arguments. The Strasbourg court ruled that this had been unfair. The procedures were changed, allowing people to make comments to a court in such circumstances.

Read more

There must be proper rules on detention without trial

Giuseppe Toniolo was detained in San Marino for five weeks whilst awaiting extradition. The Strasbourg court ruled that the law in San Marino did not set out clear rules for his imprisonment, meaning that he could be detained arbitrarily and could not effectively make a claim to be released.

Read more