EIT: Venäläiskytköksisten yritysten liiketoimet kiellettiin turvallisuusperusteilla asianmukaisessa menettelyssä

Decisions rejecting business projects on national security grounds respected fair-trial rights

In today’s Chamber judgments1 in the cases of UAB Ambercore DC and UAB Arcus Novus v. Lithuania and UAB Braitin v. Lithuania (application nos. 56774/18 and 13863/19) the European
Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:

• no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights in either case.

Both cases concerned decisions refusing the applicant companies permission to proceed with planned business projects in Vilnius because they were a threat to national security as their
shareholders had links either to the Russian secret services or to the Lukashenko regime in Belarus.

The companies in the first case had wanted to build a data-storage facility, while the company in the second case had intended to acquire an investment company.

In their complaints to the Court, the applicant companies alleged a breach of their right to adversarial proceedings and equality of arms because the decisions had been taken on the basis of
evidence which had not been disclosed to them as it had been classified. The Court found that the restrictions on the applicant companies’ rights had been counterbalanced by other procedural safeguards. They had been able to participate effectively in the administrative proceedings on their cases and have witnesses examined. The classified evidence had not been
decisive for the proceedings as there had been other, publicly available, documents on which the decisions had been based. Overall, there had been nothing to suggest in either case that the
decisions had been arbitrary or disproportionate.

Press release