NOOR Partner and Attorney-at-Law Giedrius Danėlius has filed a request with the Supreme Court of Lithuania to reopen the criminal case of Raimondas Kurlianskis. The request is based on the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 7 July, which found certain provisions of the Law on Intelligence governing the extension of covert intelligence gathering, as well as the storage, transfer and use of intelligence, to be unconstitutional.
The request argues that the provisions found to be unconstitutional were directly relevant to the collection of intelligence used in R. Kurlianskis’ criminal case and its subsequent transfer for use in criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court is therefore being asked to reopen the case and reassess whether the intelligence was obtained and used in accordance with the constitutional requirements of legality, justification and proportionality.
The defence challenged the constitutionality of the Law on Intelligence from the first-instance proceedings
The defence raised concerns about the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the Law on Intelligence throughout the proceedings before all three levels of court. It also challenged the admissibility of the intelligence collected under those provisions. At the time, however, the courts, including the Supreme Court of Lithuania, found no grounds to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court.
After the criminal proceedings had concluded, R. Kurlianskis lodged an individual constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court. On 7 July, the Court delivered its ruling, finding certain challenged provisions of the Law on Intelligence to be unconstitutional.
“We raised questions about the constitutionality of these provisions while the case was still being heard. The Constitutional Court has now confirmed that part of the legal framework was unconstitutional. Where intelligence was collected and used in criminal proceedings under such rules, the court must assess whether this affected the conviction itself,” says Giedrius Danėlius, NOOR Partner and Attorney-at-Law representing R. Kurlianskis.
Supreme Court asked to examine whether intelligence was lawfully used in the case
One of the episodes highlighted in the request concerns conversations between R. Kurlianskis and Dainoras Bradauskas, then Head of the State Tax Inspectorate, recorded at the Amberton Hotel restaurant in 2015. According to the request, intelligence collected under the Law on Intelligence was transferred to the Special Investigation Service and became one of the factual grounds for launching a criminal intelligence investigation.
The request also raises questions about a report prepared by the State Security Department in 2018. The report summarised intelligence collected over an extended period and was relied upon in the criminal proceedings.
Danėlius stresses that the Constitutional Court’s ruling does not in itself overturn the conviction, nor does it automatically render the intelligence used in the case inadmissible. The Supreme Court is being asked to reopen the proceedings so that the specific intelligence and its impact on the conviction can be reassessed in light of the constitutional standards established by the Constitutional Court’s ruling.
“The Constitutional Court did not rule on Raimondas Kurlianskis’ guilt or assess the specific evidence in the criminal case. That is precisely why the criminal court must now examine these issues. The question is a very specific one: could a person’s conviction be based on intelligence where the legal framework governing its collection, storage and transfer was subsequently found to be incompatible with the Constitution?” says Giedrius Danėlius.