5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Klaipėda. 6.  On 19 February 2012 V.M. complained to the Klaipėda police that on that day he had been beaten up in the stairwell of his residential building by two teenagers, fifteen-year-old A.K. (the applicant’s son) and seventeen‑year-old V.O. He was examined by a court medical expert, who found bruises and swelling on his face, concussion, contusions in the chest area and a resulting inflammation of the right lung, and a compression fracture of the spine. The injuries were categorised as a minor health impairment (nesunkus sveikatos sutrikdymas). The police opened a pre-trial investigation. 7.  When interviewed by the police, V.M. stated that at about 5 p.m. on 19 February 2012 he had heard a noise in the stairwell of his residential building and had gone out of his apartment to check. He had seen four teenagers smoking cigarettes and listening to loud music on a mobile phone, and there had been cans of beer at the window. V.M. had asked the teenagers to leave the building and two of them had done so. However, A.K. had refused to leave, so V.M. had threatened to call the police. Then A.K. had approached V.M. and punched him in the face. That had angered V.M., so he had blocked the exit of the stairwell and had tried to grab A.K. He had managed to grab A.K. by the coat, shaken him and told him to leave the building. Then V.O. had approached V.M. and tried to hit him but V.M. had managed to dodge the punches. At that moment A.K. had hit V.M. in the head and kicked him in the back, as a result of which V.M. had fallen down a flight of stairs. While he had been lying down, A.K. and V.O. had kicked him several times in the back and the face. V.M. had screamed for his wife to call the police and had eventually lost consciousness. He had come to in his apartment and the police had soon arrived. 8.  The applicant’s son, A.K., was interviewed as a witness, with the applicant present during the interview. A.K. stated that on the day in question he and his three friends, including V.O., had entered the stairwell of a residential building in their neighbourhood to get warm. They had stayed in the stairwell for a while, talking and listening to music on a mobile phone, but they had not been smoking or drinking alcohol. After some time, V.M., whom they had not known, had come out of his apartment and had begun yelling at the teenagers. A.K. had asked him to stop yelling, after which V.M. had grabbed A.K. by the neck and kicked him in the legs. A.K. had stood up and tried to leave but had been unable to do so because V.M. had been standing in the way. V.M. had tried to grab A.K. and punch him, so A.K. had punched V.M. twice in self-defence. Then V.M. had grabbed A.K.’s leg and A.K. had fallen down. When he had stood up, he had seen V.M. holding V.O. by the neck and trying to drag him inside the apartment. V.O. had asked A.K. to push V.M. and A.K. had done so. V.O. had managed to free himself and had pushed V.M. as well, and V.M. had fallen on the ground. Then A.K. and V.O. had run away. A.K. stated that V.M. had been the first to hit him and that he had hit V.M. only in self-defence. As a result, A.K. had broken his right hand, although he was not sure at which exact moment that had happened. He also stated that he had not seen V.O. hit V.M. 9.  V.O.’s mother joined the proceedings as her son’s representative and was questioned as a witness. She stated that after finding out about the allegations against her son, she had spoken to V.M. and the latter had told her that the conflict had broken out between him and A.K., whereas V.O. had only intervened later to help A.K. V.M. had also told her that A.K. had punched him first. She further stated that her son had likewise told her that he had not hit V.M. but had only held him. 10.  The police held a confrontation between V.M. and A.K., with the applicant present, during which they both essentially repeated their previous statements (see paragraphs 7 and 8 above). The police also accompanied them both to the location of the incident (the stairwell) and they each showed how their claimed version of events had unfolded. 11.  On an unspecified date V.O. was charged with causing a minor health impairment and a breach of public order under Articles 138 § 1 and 284 § 1 of the Criminal Code. 12.  On 19 November 2012 the Klaipėda District Court held an oral hearing in which A.K. was questioned as a witness and the applicant did not participate. A.K. essentially repeated his previous testimony (see paragraph 8 above). 13.  On 27 November 2012 the Klaipėda District Court convicted V.O. of the charges against him. The court considered that even though V.O. had denied his guilt, it had been proved by other evidence: V.O. had admitted that he had participated in the altercation with V.M. and that he had instructed A.K. to push V.M., and credible witness testimony had shown that “the victim had been assaulted not only by [A.K.] but by [V.O.] as well”. The court held that V.O. had committed the criminal offence while acting together with a minor below the age of criminal responsibility (A.K.), that he had encouraged A.K. to assault V.M., and that he had not stopped A.K. from doing so; accordingly he had to assume all the consequences of the criminal activity in question. V.O. was sentenced to one year of restriction of liberty and ordered to study or work during that period. The court allowed in part a civil claim lodged by V.M. for damages in respect of the assault, and ordered V.O. to pay him 240 Lithuanian litai (LTL) (approximately 70 euros (EUR)) in respect of pecuniary damage and LTL 2,000 (approximately EUR 580) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. 14.  V.M. appealed against that judgment, asking that the award be increased in respect of non-pecuniary damage. On 21 March 2013 the Klaipėda Regional Court partly allowed his appeal. It upheld V.O.’s conviction and increased the award in respect of non-pecuniary damage to LTL 5,000 (approximately EUR 1,450). 15.  In May 2013 V.M. lodged a civil claim against the applicant and her son. V.M. submitted that A.K.’s violent actions had impaired his health and had caused him physical and psychological suffering. He claimed LTL 20,000 (approximately EUR 5,800) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage jointly from the applicant and A.K. 16.  The Klaipėda District Court instructed V.M. to amend his claim and to indicate the specific actions of A.K. which had allegedly caused him harm. In June 2013 V.M. lodged an amended claim in which he submitted that A.K. had punched him in the face, arms and head, had kicked him in the back, as a result of which he had fallen down a flight of stairs, and that while he had been lying down, A.K. had kicked him again several times. 17.  The applicant and her son contested the claim. They argued that V.M. could not have relied on the courts’ findings in the criminal proceedings against V.O. because A.K. had not been convicted in those proceedings and had only had the status of a witness. They also argued that V.M. should have submitted his claim not only against A.K.’s mother (the applicant) but also against A.K.’s father, who they argued was equally responsible for the actions of his minor son. Lastly they submitted that the amount of the claim was excessive because A.K. was a student and did not have any income, and the applicant was unemployed. 18.  At an oral hearing held on 8 November 2013, V.M. stated that A.K. had been the one who had started the assault. V.M. submitted that the courts in the criminal proceedings had ruled that V.O. and A.K. had committed the assault together (see paragraph 13 above); thus, even though A.K. could not have been held criminally liable because of his age, his actions had been established by a final court judgment. Meanwhile the applicant and her son’s lawyer argued that the judgments given in the criminal proceedings against V.O. did not have a res judicata effect (neturi prejudicinės galios) in the present civil proceedings because the criminal and the civil proceedings had concerned different parties and the courts in the criminal proceedings had not made any findings as to A.K.’s guilt in the operative part of their judgments. The lawyer also submitted that in the criminal proceedings it had not been identified which injuries had been caused by V.O. and which by A.K. 19.  On 28 November 2013 the Klaipėda District Court partly allowed V.M.’s claim. Referring to the material in the criminal case file, the court considered it established that A.K. had punched V.M. in the face, arms and head and had kicked him in the back, as a result of which V.M. had fallen down a flight of stairs, and that while he had been lying down, A.K. had kicked him again several times (see paragraphs 7 and 13 above). It also referred to the findings of the court medical expert who had examined V.M. and determined the injuries caused to him during the assault (see paragraph 6 above). The court further stated:
“When questioned during the pre-trial investigation, [A.K.] confessed that he had hit the victim and had pushed him down the stairs, stating that he had done so in self‑defence ... As a result of [A.K.’s] actions, the victim had suffered harm. These facts were established in the course of criminal proceedings, during the pre-trial investigation (Article 182 § 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure); the defendants have not provided any facts that could disprove [A.K.’s] guilt, so there is no need to prove these established facts with regard to [A.K.’s] unlawful actions and guilt (šių nustatytų faktų dėl atsakovo [A.K.] neteisėtų veiksmų ir kaltės nereikia įrodinėti).” 20.  The court further held that there had been a causal link between A.K.’s actions and the harm suffered by V.M., so there were sufficient grounds for awarding V.M. damages. It dismissed the defendants’ argument that A.K.’s father should have been one of the defendants, taking note of V.M.’s argument that A.K.’s father lived separately from his family and that V.M. did not have any information about him, and stating that the civil claimant had had the freedom to choose the defendants against whom he wished to submit his claim. 21.  The court, having regard to A.K.’s young age and the applicant’s difficult financial situation, allowed V.M.’s civil claim in part and awarded him LTL 2,000 (approximately EUR 580) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and LTL 1,500 (approximately EUR 435) in legal costs. The court ordered that the above amounts were to be paid by A.K., and that if he did not have sufficient assets they were to be paid by the applicant. The applicant’s obligation to pay those amounts would end when A.K. turned eighteen years old or when he obtained sufficient assets (see paragraph 32 below). 22.  The applicant and her son appealed against that decision, raising essentially the same arguments as those presented in their initial reply to the civil claim (see paragraph 17 above). V.M. also submitted an appeal in which he asked for his claim to be allowed in full and to be awarded LTL 20,000 (approximately EUR 5,800) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. 23.  On 28 April 2014 the Klaipėda Regional Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant and her son. It stated:
“The defendants in their appeal submitted that the judgment [in the criminal proceedings against V.O.] had not assessed [A.K.’s] guilt in respect of the criminal offence and that the court could thus not have relied on the circumstances established in the judgment of 27 November 2012. This argument cannot be accepted. The Klaipėda District Court’s judgment of 27 November 2012 and the Klaipėda Regional Court’s judgment of 21 March 2013 established that unlawful actions had been committed by the defendant [A.K.] as well. The first-instance court correctly stated that the circumstances which had been established in the course of the criminal proceedings could be relied on and that there was no need to prove them (baudžiamojoje byloje nustatytomis aplinkybėmis galima vadovautis ir jų nebereikia įrodinėti) (Article 182 § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The [court] notes that the fact that the defendant has not been prosecuted in criminal proceedings does not preclude his civil liability ... The first-instance court drew the well-founded conclusion that the conditions for the civil liability of the defendants were present: unlawful actions, fault, a causal link determining civil liability, and the damage caused to [V.M.].” 24.  The court partly upheld the appeal submitted by V.M. and increased the award in respect of non-pecuniary damages to LTL 8,000 (approximately EUR 2,320). The applicant and A.K. were also ordered to pay the legal expenses incurred by V.M. at the appellate stage, amounting to LTL 300 (approximately EUR 87). 25.  Subsequently the applicant and her son lodged two appeals on points of law in which they argued that the decisions of the first-instance and the appellate courts had been contrary to the law and the principles of fairness, reasonableness and good faith. In particular, they submitted that awarding a higher amount in respect of non-pecuniary damage against them (EUR 2,320) than had been awarded against V.O. (EUR 1,450), who had been convicted in criminal proceedings had been contrary to the law and unjustified. However, on 29 May 2014 and 31 July 2014 the Supreme Court declined to examine the appeals as raising no important legal issues.