SECOND SECTION
CASE OF MIRONIUK v. LITHUANIA
(Application no. 60964/21)
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
12 May 2026
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Mironiuk v. Lithuania,
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir, President,
 Gediminas Sagatys,
 Juha Lavapuro, judges,
and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 60964/21) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 28 November 2021 by a Lithuanian national, Mr Roman Mironiuk (“the applicant”), who was born in 1986 and is currently in prison in Vilnius;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė-Širmenė, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 7 April 2026,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns the length of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Criminal proceedings against the applicant   Pre-trial investigation

2. On 14 July 2009 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of aggravated murder and property-related offences, committed as part of an organised group. From 15 July 2009 he was detained on remand and his detention was regularly extended. On 28 May 2010 he was informed that the pre-trial investigation had been completed. Court proceedings     Vilnius Regional Court

3. On 7 June 2010 the case against the applicant and five other defendants was transferred to the Vilnius Regional Court for examination. 4. On 21 June 2010 the Vilnius Regional Court ordered an in-patient psychiatric assessment of one of the co-accused and transferred the case file to the experts conducting the assessment. 5. From 14 to 28 July 2010 the case file was returned by the experts to the Vilnius Regional Court for the examination of the applicant’s appeal against his detention on remand. 6. On 30 September 2010 the report of the psychiatric assessment (see paragraph 4 above) as well as the case file were delivered to the court. 7. The court held a hearing on 27 October 2010 and made a break until 12 January 2011 at the request of one of the co-accused, who stated that “he [was] tired”. 8. Some of the scheduled hearings did not take place or were adjourned for the following reasons:
(a) On 18 October 2010 the scheduled hearing was adjourned because one of the victims was not present. (b) The hearing of 12 January 2011 did not take place, because the lawyer of one of the co-accused did not appear before the court. (c) On 17 March 2011 the court made a break until 31 March 2011, because the lawyer of one of the co-accused requested to invite experts. (d) The hearing of 14 October 2011 did not take place due to a judge’s illness. (e) In the hearing of 3 February 2012 the lawyer of one of the co-accused requested to give a closing speech in the next hearing. (f) The hearing of 24 February 2012 did not take place, because three lawyers did not appear. (g) On 1 October 2012 the court made a break until 22 October 2012, because the lawyer of one of the co-accused did not appear before the court. 9. On 25 March 2011 and 20 April 2012 the composition of the court changed. At the hearing of 27 April 2012, at the request of the lawyer of one of the co-accused, the new composition started examining the case from the beginning and held four further hearings. 10. On 14 December 2012 the Vilnius Regional Court acquitted the applicant of complicity in extortion of property but convicted him for other criminal offences, including complicity in aggravated murder and property crimes, and sentenced him to eighteen years’ imprisonment. Court of Appeal
11. The applicant and the other co-accused lodged appeals against the above-mentioned judgment. On 14 February 2013 the case was sent to the Court of Appeal. 12. The day before the first hearing scheduled for 28 March 2013, the applicant’s representative informed the court that he was not authorised to represent the applicant before the appellate court. Therefore, the applicant’s request to postpone the hearing was granted and the case was adjourned until 16 October 2013. On 16 April 2013 the applicant submitted a request for a new lawyer to be appointed for him and this request was granted on 25 April 2013. 13. The hearing of 16 October 2013 was postponed until 7 March 2014 at the request of the lawyer for one of the co-accused, without any reasons being given. 14. On 20 March 2014 the court ordered a psychiatric assessment of one of the co-accused and the case was adjourned until receipt of the report. The report was delivered to the court on 8 October 2014 and the next hearing was scheduled for 4 March 2015. 15. On 2 March 2015 the civil parties in the proceedings lodged a revised civil claim, and the scheduled hearing of 4 March 2015 was postponed until 12 November 2015. 16. The hearing scheduled for 12 November 2015 was postponed with the consent of all parties involved, as it was decided to summon additional parties. The hearing scheduled for 25 November 2015 was postponed because a lawyer of one of the co-accused failed to appear without valid reason and was fined as a result. The court also held hearings on 2 December 2015, 5 May, 2 June and 26 October 2016. 17. On 29 December 2016 the Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction and final sentence, but amended the legal classification concerning aggravated murder. Supreme Court
18. On 28 June 2017 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court, arguing that his sentence ought to be reduced due to the lengthy criminal proceedings. 19. On 16 November 2017 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court observed that, in accordance with the domestic case-law, excessively lengthy proceedings constituted an exceptional circumstance due to which a less severe penalty might be imposed. However, there had been no unjustified delays in the criminal proceedings and therefore no grounds on which to commute his final sentence. Civil proceedings for damages
20. In 2020 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the State, requesting compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the lengthy duration of the criminal proceedings. In particular, he noted that there had been two changes in the composition of the first-instance court. He also emphasised the extremely lengthy examination of the case before the appellate court. 21. On 17 November 2020 the Vilnius District Court dismissed the claim. It held that the proceedings had been conducted promptly. As far as the examination of the criminal case before the first-instance court was concerned, it emphasised that the fact that the composition of the first‑instance court had changed had not had any impact on the duration of the proceedings (see paragraph 8 above). The applicant had himself prolonged the psychiatric assessment due to the necessity to return the case file to the court examining his appeal against his detention (see paragraph 5 above). As for the appellate court, the psychiatric assessment had been carried out and another break of seven months had been necessary because the applicant had not entered into an agreement for his representation (see paragraphs 14 and 12 above). 22. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision but on 2 March 2021 the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed it, noting that the absence of unjustified delays had already been established in the decisions of the criminal courts (see paragraph 19 above), decisions which had a res judicata effect and could no longer be questioned. 23. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal on points of law, emphasising the overall duration of the criminal proceedings and arguing that, owing to the refusal to commute his final sentence, no redress had been provided for his suffering. On 2 June 2021 the Supreme Court refused to accept the appeal for examination on the grounds that it did not raise any important legal issues and did not indicate the complete legal arguments, which confirm the existence of the cassation grounds. Complaint
24. The applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive, contrary to the requirements of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

Outcome for Article 6: violation