5.  The applicant was born in 1983 and lives in Palanga. 6.  On 22 November 2013 the director of company M. lodged a complaint with the Klaipėda police, alleging that the applicant’s wife, who had been providing accounting services to company M., had unlawfully transferred large amounts of money from that company’s bank account to other companies. The director claimed that company M. had not obtained any services from those companies and that he had not pre-approved those transfers. 7.  On 25 November 2013 the Klaipėda police opened a pre-trial investigation into allegations of embezzlement and falsification of documents, under Article 184 § 1 and Article 300 § 1 of the Criminal Code. The director of company M. was questioned as a witness and stated that in May 2012 he had entered into a contract for accounting services with company A., of which the applicant was the director. In accordance with that contract, the applicant’s wife had begun providing accounting services to company M. In the beginning he had been happy with her work, but later he had noticed certain bank transfers which appeared suspicious to him. One such suspicious transfer had been a payment of 120,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL) (approximately 34,750 euros (EUR)) to company A. 8.  On 4 December 2013 the applicant’s wife was granted the status of a “special witness” in the investigation; in line with the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP”), she was questioned about her own possibly criminal activity and was exempted from liability for refusing to testify or giving false testimony (see paragraph 27 below). She stated that all the transfers from company M.’s bank account which she had carried out had been pre-approved by its director. She also stated that the transfer to company A. had been made by mistake, and the entire amount had been returned to company M. within a week. 9.  On 9 April 2014 the applicant was called as a witness. He refused to give testimony in relation to his wife’s actions and the payment of LTL 120,000 received by company A. from company M. 10.  On 26 May 2014 a prosecutor from the Klaipėda regional prosecutor’s office gave the applicant a fine of LTL 650 (approximately EUR 188) for refusing to testify, as provided for in Article 163 of the CCP (see paragraphs 31 and 32 below). 11.  The applicant lodged a complaint with a senior prosecutor. He argued that the status of a “special witness” was similar to that of a suspect, and therefore he should not have been compelled to testify against his wife, who had such status. He relied on Article 31 of the Constitution, which prohibits compelling a person to testify against his or her family members (see paragraph 18 below). 12.  On 9 June 2014 a senior prosecutor from the Klaipėda regional prosecutor’s office dismissed the applicant’s complaint on the grounds that, in accordance with the CCP, only the family members of a suspect or an accused were exempt from liability for refusing to testify, but the CCP did not extend such a privilege to the family members of a “special witness” (see paragraph 19 below). 13.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Klaipėda District Court, raising essentially the same arguments as those which he had raised before (see paragraph 11 above). He also asked the court to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for a ruling on whether the CCP provisions which exempted the family members of a suspect or an accused from liability for refusing to testify, but not the family members of a “special witness”, complied with the Constitution. 14.  On 9 July 2014 the Klaipėda District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint and upheld the reasoning in the prosecutor’s decision (see paragraph 12 above). It stated that the applicant’s right not to testify against his wife would have been breached only if his wife had had the status of a suspect and not that of a witness. It also considered that the applicant’s request to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court was “subjective and legally unfounded”. That decision was final and not open to any further appeal. 15.  Subsequently, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Klaipėda Regional Court, but on 22 July 2014 that court refused to examine it, on the grounds that there was no provision for such an appeal in law. The applicant then lodged an application to reopen the proceedings with the Supreme Court, but on 23 September 2014 the court ruled that it had no authority to reopen proceedings concerning procedural penalties imposed under Article 163 of the CCP. 16.  On 11 September 2014 the applicant was questioned as a witness in the pre-trial investigation. He stated that he was the director of company A., which provided accounting services to other companies. His wife worked as the financial director of company A., and from May to November 2012 she had provided accounting services to company M. The applicant stated that he had not known how or why LTL 120,000 had been transferred to the bank account of company A. He knew only that that entire amount had been returned to company M. within a week, in a transfer carried out by his wife. 17.  On 22 September 2014 the Klaipėda regional prosecutor’s office discontinued the pre-trial investigation on the grounds that no criminal offences had been committed. It appears that that decision was not appealed against and became final.