[ad_1]
“I wouldn’t say this is a unique case, just the weirdest when people do such things against judges.” This is the strangest thing here: they still understand, they know the laws and how to do it, ”V. Savickienė told BNS.
“I wouldn’t call it a mistake. I think someone came up with that anyway. It can’t be a mistake, but why and what for, I really don’t understand,” he said.
In its ruling, the SCL stated that the prosecution of the then Judge of the Regional Administrative Court Panevėžys V. Savickienė had been initiated and carried out in an unreasonable and illegal manner, due to the pre-trial investigation and the prosecutor’s error in legally classifying actual actions that the plaintiff had been illegally accused of criminal acts and that they are not criminals. “
Relied on unverified information
The operational investigation against V. Savickienė began in 2008, motivating the information received that the judge could then abuse his official position and influence another judge.
In 2010, she was fired for demoting a judge, and then did not work for three years due to health problems.
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Lithuania assessed that the information on the basis of which the operational investigation had been initiated had not been verified and was vague, and no actions had been identified for which the judge was suspected.
However, the judge was prosecuted for seeking a certificate of incapacity for work for his adult daughter, thus abusing his authority.
However, the courts ruled that V. Savickienė received no personal benefit. In the Court’s opinion, the mention of an authorized and known profession does not in itself mean that the person’s application must be granted unconditionally, and that certificates of incapacity for work are issued in some cases by telephone.
Therefore, in 2015, the SCL, by an unappealable decision, ruled that violations of the rules for issuing a certificate of incapacity for work could not diminish the authority of a judge or a judicial authority and concluded that V. Savickienė was accused excessively of abusing an accomplice by practically criminal acts.
Non-material damage: due to loss of health and reputation
Following this decision of the Court of Cassation, the former judge, who currently works as a lawyer, petitioned the courts for 150,000. Non-pecuniary damage. Last year, the Panevėžys District Court rejected the lawsuit, but the Kaunas Regional Court, which examined the case on appeal, partially resolved it: it sentenced V. Savickienė of the Republic of Lithuania to 75,000. Non-pecuniary damage.
This decision was appealed in cassation by the Special Investigation Service, the Attorney General’s Office and the Ministry of Justice. The police authorities requested that the ruling of the lower court be upheld and the ministry either dismissed the civil action or reduced its amount.
On July 2, the SCL decided to partially satisfy the complaint and reduce the amount awarded to 50 thousand. euros
In awarding non-pecuniary damages, the court found that the former judge had “lost good health, income and reputation” and that the process had lasted a long time and intimidated the plaintiff, causing her stress, nervous tension and deterioration of health due to prosecution. unjustified.
‘The plaintiff lost her income as a result of the prosecution, the conduct and its continuation for many years. He lost his long-term earnings and his impaired health and negative public image as a result of the persecution had a significant negative effect on his earning potential and his inability to find (create) a job that matches his qualifications. An impeccable reputation is of great importance to the legal profession, ”says SCL.
Due to violated dignity, damaged reputation and deteriorating health, the applicant, according to the SCL, was unable to work in a job that matched her qualifications.
On the other hand, the SCL maintained that it had not been evaluated that the plaintiff had committed violations of the judge’s ethics, which had resulted in the dismissal and, as a result, reduced the non-pecuniary damages awarded from 75 thousand. up to 50 thousand. euros
V. Savickienė herself considers that there were no reasons to reduce the damages awarded and points out that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against her based on the same operational information.
“The case was examined according to the material of the operational investigation. No witness was questioned in that case. The other thing I was fired for was not even before the court of honor of the judges in that disciplinary case of mine: it was simply filed and the president issued a decree, “said the former judge.
However, the court’s decision satisfies it.
“I am satisfied with this decision, but I do not think it was necessary to reduce it (the amount of damages – BNS), because the appeals court had already reduced the amount I requested enough. And it is simply impossible to assess the damage to property as did, ”said V. Savickienė.
STT: jurisprudence is changing
The Special Investigation Service (STT), which conducted the pre-trial investigation in the case, claims that investigation regulations and jurisprudence have changed for more than a decade on the case.
“Both the regulation of investigations and jurisprudence have changed during this period. What was assessed ten years ago as a sufficient and appropriate legal and factual basis for action can now be assessed differently due to changes in judicial practice.” said Renata Keblienė, Service representative, at BNS.
According to her, the legitimacy of her actions in criminal intelligence is guaranteed by a multi-level control system: STT units must request it from the prosecutor’s office to apply such measures, and prosecutors, in turn, must file a request in court. , which may or may not authorize criminal intelligence measures.
The STT noted that the situation was ambiguously evaluated by the courts themselves, which made different decisions in criminal and civil cases.
“In the course of this investigation, in accordance with legal provisions and current practice at that time, both the prosecutor and the judge evaluated STT’s requests as appropriate and reasonable,” said a STT spokeswoman.
According to R. Keblienė, as judicial practice and requirements regarding the information and details provided change, the decisions made previously were evaluated by the court from the perspective of current practice.
He also noted that the situation was also ambiguously evaluated by the courts, which had issued different decisions in both criminal and civil cases.
“The STT constantly evaluates and analyzes changes in the law and jurisprudence and takes measures to ensure that the service’s activities comply with the jurisprudence and the strictest human rights requirements. Service officials who carry out investigations raise their qualifications in training and seminars, during which judicial decisions and changes in judicial practice that may affect service activities are analyzed and evaluated, ”he said.
[ad_2]
