issued by the Registrar of the Court
ECHR 045 (2020)
04.02.2020
Judgments of 4 February 2020
The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing 16 judgments1:
three Chamber judgments are summarised below; separate press releases have been issued for one
other Chamber judgments in the case of Alexandru-Marian Iancu v. Romania (application
no. 60858/15) and for two committee judgments in the cases of Baysultanov v. Russia
(no. 56120/13) and Bayram v. Turkey (no. 7087/12);
ten Committee judgments, concerning issues which have already been submitted to the Court, can
The judgments in French are indicated with an asterisk (*)
Bastys v. Lithuania (application no. 80749/17)
The case concerned the authorities’ refusal to issue a member of parliament with security clearance.
The applicant, Mindaugas Bastys, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Vilnius.
In October 2016, Mr Bastys was re-elected as a member of the Seimas (the Lithuanian parliament)
and appointed as Deputy Speaker a month later. As part of the standard procedure, the Speaker
asked the State Security Department (SSD) to assess whether or not he could be granted security
clearance, which would allow him access to top secret information. Following a questionnaire and
two interviews to which he had agreed, the SSD issued a note opposing his security clearance as it
had reasons to doubt his trustworthiness. In particular, he apparently maintained relationships with
several individuals who had links to Russia and whose activities were considered contrary to national
security interests.
On 9 March 2017, the Speaker informed Mr Bastys orally that he would not be issued with security
clearance and asked him to resign as Deputy Speaker, which he did. A few days later, he asked the
SSD to provide him with the information used to justify its note in order to be able to contest the
note in court. The SSD refused, stating that part of the information in the note was classified. It also
stated that the note, as an interim document, could not be contested before a court. The Speaker
also refused to provide a copy of his decision not to issue the applicant with security clearance.
Mr Bastys subsequently lodged complaints against the Seimas and the SSD before the Vilnius
Regional Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. He primarily alleged that the
conclusions in the SSD note were unfounded and that the Speaker had not adopted a written
decision on the refusal for security clearance. Both jurisdictions ruled that the SSD note was an
interim document without any legal consequences and could not therefore be contested in court.
The Supreme Administrative Court also found that the Speaker’s decision did not fall within the
scope of public administration and could not be examined by the administrative courts.
In March 2018 Mr Bastys resigned as a member of the Seimas.
1
Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a Chamber
judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a
panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and
deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the
Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final.
Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.
Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution
