[ad_1]
Judge Rūta Petkuvienė, who examined the case, also announced that she had decided to go to the Constitutional Court with a request to clarify whether the Presidential Decree implementing the removal of E. Laužikas and the resolution approved by the Seimas to repeal the Constitution complied with the Constitution.
The part of the case related to the declaration of illegality of the appeal of the President before the Council of the Magistracy was closed and the remaining case was suspended until the interpretation of the Constitutional Court was received.
According to the court, the Council of Judges, when considering E. Laužikas’ conduct, violated the requirements of due process and did not guarantee him the right to defense.
“The Council of Judges did not provide the plaintiff with the stated reasons for his dismissal from the post of judge, thus violating his right to a fair trial, which was manifested in the restriction of his legal defense,” said Judge R. Petkuvienė.
He also emphasized that the judge’s ethics violations were not confidential information, so E. Laužikas should have had access to it.
“The accused must respect the rules of procedural fairness that aim to objectify the assessment of the facts,” the judge said.
R. Petkuvienė also stated that the composition of the Council of Judges considering the activities of E. Laužikas did not ensure impartiality, since a judge who was questioned as a witness in the same pre-trial investigation and a judge who was mentioned as a consultant in the intelligence conversations with complaints problems.
Regarding the assessment of the conduct of E. Laužikas as a violation of discipline, the judge highlighted that the material presented by the Prosecutor’s Office did not indicate any concrete fact that could be objectively verified by proving the degrading treatment of the judge’s name.
“The court rejected the circumstance proven by the defendant that the plaintiff tolerated the offer of compensation, because the fact that such an offer was presented to the plaintiff has not been proven,” noted R. Petkuvienė.
He also stated that in the case it was shown that E. Laužikas had spoken with the judge of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania about the cases pending before this court, but it had not been proved that he was interested in a specific case and he tried to influence the judge to make a decision favorable to your employer.
“Therefore, it cannot be equated with the humiliation of a judge’s name, for which the applicable sanction – dismissal – is proportionate to its purpose,” the judge said.
In the complaint filed before the Regional Court, E. Laužikas sought to declare illegal and annul the decision of the Council of Judges on the council to remove the president, the subsequent presidential decree and the decision of the Seimas on dismissal.
The former judge alleged that he had not violated the law or the judge’s ethics and stated that the instructional material presented by the Prosecutor’s Office did not contain any supporting data, so that the self-government of the Judiciary, the president and the Seimas had no reasons to remove him.
E. Laužikas and his lawyers also challenged the removal process itself, according to them, then their rights to due process and legal defense were violated, and the presumption of innocence was mentioned.
The Seimas, the President and the Judicial Council affirmed that the impeachment process had been carried out correctly and that the pre-trial investigation contained sufficient information to allow the President and the Judicial Council to question the independence and impartiality of E. Laužikas and decide who had demoted the judge.
The Vilnius Regional Court had also appealed to the Constitutional Court, which asked it to clarify whether the removal procedure for judges was unconstitutional, but it refused to examine the petition and stated that the legality of the removal procedure should be assessed by the court that learn about the case.
E. Laužikas was relieved of his duties as a Supreme Court judge last September, after being charged with two episodes in a case of corruption of judges: one of them is related to the case of the “mansion” of Vijūnėl the, the another, with the case seen in the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania.
The material from the pre-trial investigation establishes that E. Laužikas discussed the course of the case with those interested in its outcome, tolerated their proposals for possible compensation for appropriate decisions, and attempted to influence the outcome of the next case.
The former judge of the Court of Appeal Valdimaras Bavėjanas has also appealed the dismissal in this corruption case. This case is also being examined by the Vilnius Regional Court.
More than 50 people have been accused of judicial corruption. More than 110 crimes are being investigated.
The decision of the Vilnius Regional Court can be appealed to the Lithuanian Court of Appeal within 30 days.
[ad_2]
