No one can be tried twice for the same offense
JUDGMENT
Šimkus v. Lithuania 13-06-2017 (no. 41788/11)
SUMMARY
Ne bis in idem. Use of two different procedures (administrative and criminal) for the same facts and the same offense. The applicant was convicted in administrative proceedings for deceptive behavior in a hospital and at the same time a criminal proceeding was initiated for the same conduct at the same place and time. The ECtHR found violation of the ne bis in idem principle, regarding the right not to be tried and not to be punished twice for the same offense.
PROVISION
Article 4 of the Protocol n. 7
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Raimundas Šimkus, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1975 and lives in Tauragė (Lithuania). Relying on Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), Mr Šimkus complained that two different sets of proceedings had been brought against him relating to the same offence. In July 2006, a phone call was received by an officer of the State Border Guard Service, in which the caller threatened to “find and shoot” an officer who had shot a man suspected of smuggling earlier that night. A forensic examination identified the caller as Mr Šimkus. Later the same night, Mr Šimkus had arrived at the hospital where the wounded man was being treated and used various swearwords against the officers, demanded that they release the wounded man, and said that he would beat the officers up or kill them.
In administrative proceedings, Mr Šimkus, was found to have committed the offence of minor hooliganism for using swearwords in the hospital. However, criminal proceedings were also brought against him, in relation to both the phone call and his conduct in the hospital. The criminal proceedings were ultimately terminated for being time-barred. Mr Šimkus complained that the criminal proceedings had related to the same offence for which he had been given an administrative penalty.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7
Just satisfaction: The Court held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by Mr Šimkus. It further awarded him EUR 1,800 for costs and expenses.
