Constitutional Court to Rule on Businessman's Challenge to Intelligence Surveillance

Romas Kurlianskis, who is serving a prison sentence, is challenging the legality of his extensive surveillance by Lithuania's intelligence services, arguing it violated his rights.

“

The surveillance against my client, according to the case data, involved two criminal intelligence cases. In one case, information obtained in another case was used, and such actions, according to S. Slapšinskas, violate the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Kurlianskis, currently in an open prison and due for parole eligibility in August after serving half of his 5-year, 6-month sentence, has been denied early release due to insufficient engagement in rehabilitation and a formal attitude towards his offenses. His lawyers contend that the more than 10 years of surveillance, from 2005 to 2018, was disproportionate and illegal.

His legal team specifically points to the use of intelligence gathered in one case to inform another, a practice they claim breaches the Criminal Procedure Code. The State Security Department (VSD) allegedly monitored Kurlianskis for over a decade without initiating any investigation, a point his lawyers emphasize as evidence of disproportionate action.

“

In his opinion, such actions were disproportionate, which is further strengthened by the fact that R. Kurlianskis was monitored for more than 10 years without any investigation being initiated.

Kurlianskis's individual complaint to the Constitutional Court questions whether specific articles of the Intelligence Law align with the constitution. He also challenges the law's absence of a maximum term for electronic surveillance and data retention, arguing it conflicts with the constitutional principle of a law-based state. The businessman's case has drawn responses from various state institutions, including the parliament, prosecutor's office, and the VSD, as courts consider the legality of the intelligence activities that led to his conviction in a political corruption case.

“

R. Kurlianskis asks to clarify whether the fact that the law does not establish a maximum term for the application of intelligence information collection tools – monitoring and recording the content of information transmitted via electronic communication networks, correspondence, and other personal communications – complies with the Constitution, the constitutional principle of a law-based state.