Kaunas regional court
6 September 2023
Facts
An emergency barring order has been issued against the applicant because of alleged domestic violence against his wife.
Complaint
The person appealed against the decision to issue the order, claiming that the order was unreasonable. Although he had previously been violent, the pre-trial investigation had been discontinued. He does not currently live with his wife.
Court's ruling
The Court upheld the applicant's complaint in part. The Court noted that the purpose of the Law on Protection from Domestic Violence is to ensure the protection of every person from domestic violence. The law protects the interests and rights of a person who has experienced and is experiencing domestic violence by imposing an emergency barring order.
The Court considered the risk assessments carried out, that the person at risk does not feel safe and is under stress.
The Court stated that the law does not provide for the possibility of extending the term of the order and does not say how many decisions may be taken to issue an order for the same person, but the purpose of the law, and therefore of the order, cannot be disregarded when deciding on the re-issuance of the order for a similar situation and for the same persons, and all the more so when it is done on a close-to an uninterrupted basis. The Court considers that it is inappropriate for a situation in which the measure provided for by the law is intended to resolve conflicts between persons or to evict an unwanted person with whom there are persistent conflicts, and for a period of time longer than that provided for in the law, let alone for an effectively uninterrupted period of time, to be considered inadmissible, since the application of State coercion must be proportionate and justified, with an adequate factual as well as a legal basis for it. By repeatedly and virtually uninterruptedly issuing an order in respect of the same persons in essentially similar circumstances, and by merely formally establishing the threat of domestic violence, the police officers in this situation have in fact undertaken functions which are not theirs to carry out and which, in the circumstances, may be tantamount to evicting a person, which is unlawful and unjustified.
In the light of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the decision to issue an order in this case is unjustified.