In an unusual legal battle that unfolded in Lithuania in early 2002, a recently released convict found himself petitioning a court-not too contest his past crimes, but for the right to dine at a cafe. The case of Henrikas Daktaras, nicknamed “henytė” by the Lithuanian press, underscores the frequently enough-complex challenges faced by individuals re-integrating into society following incarceration and the sometimes-overreaching scope of post-release restrictions. What began as a simple request for a midday meal quickly evolved into a debate over fundamental rights and the practicalities of re-entry.
A man recently released from prison found himself arguing in court not over the details of his crimes, but over the right to have lunch at a cafe. The unusual case, which unfolded in Lithuania in early 2002, highlights the sometimes-absurd nature of restrictions placed on those re-entering society.
Henrikas Daktaras, known in the Lithuanian press as “Henytė,” had been released early from incarceration following a prior conviction. In the fall of 2001, the Vilnius Regional Court imposed several restrictions on his freedom, requiring him to register with police twice a week and remain at home at night. Crucially, the court also prohibited him from visiting cafes or restaurants.
It was that last restriction that particularly irked Daktaras. He soon found employment with his mother’s company and, before the New Year, petitioned the court to lift the ban, arguing he had no place to eat lunch during work hours.
The Kaunas Regional Court requested a list of preferred dining establishments from Daktaras. He arrived at the hearing accompanied by his wife, Ramutė, reportedly in good spirits.
He quickly regretted not having had coffee with his lawyer before the proceedings. His attorney, Vytautas Sviderskis, stepped in, bringing a thermos of coffee from the capital city.
Sviderskis joked with Ramutė Daktarienė that he’d wanted to go to the Kaunas Regional Court cafe, but couldn’t leave “Henytė” with a cup of coffee on the street.
“You have to fight against the absurd,” Sviderskis stated in January 2002, after a court session was postponed due to the judge experiencing a toothache – a delay that meant Daktaras’s lunch plans remained unresolved.
Sviderskis argued the court’s reasoning was flawed. “If the ban on visiting cafes was intended to prevent H.Daktaras from communicating with certain individuals, he can meet with them elsewhere. And if the intention was to protect him from alcohol, Henrikas has the opportunity to drink at home with Ramutė,” he said.
Ramutė Daktarienė told reporters she was tired of her husband’s constant requests: “Wife, make me something to eat.”
When asked where he would like to eat, Daktaras mentioned “Maxima” bar and “Bernelių užeiga.” He also jokingly added, “I’ve added another task for my wife.” Ramutė Daktarienė owned a beauty salon on Laisvės Avenue at the time.
Daktaras initially stated he wouldn’t be working on the day of the hearing and could therefore eat at home. However, he later expressed satisfaction at gaining more freedoms, though he indicated he would consult with his lawyer about potentially appealing the court’s decision. “I, as a judge, probably would have made a similar decision,” he said.
Sviderskis even suggested the case could end up before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. “This is not about H.Daktaras’s well-being, but about human rights. It would be unfortunate if H.Daktaras had to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg over something like this,” he said.
Daktaras had requested the court allow him to visit cafes and restaurants not only during work hours and leisure time, but also while traveling outside of Kaunas. He was employed as a supplier for his mother Jadvyga Daktarienė’s individual enterprise, “Ramunė.”
The court had previously allowed him to travel outside his residence for up to seven days with permission. Sviderskis quipped that a permit to eat at cafes beyond Kaunas was necessary so his client wouldn’t have to haul sandwiches on a trailer if he traveled to the coast.
Correctional services inspector Stasys Tumėnas, who monitored Daktaras’s compliance with the court’s requirements, simply stated, “Let the man eat.”
The prosecution argued against granting Daktaras’s request, stating it would alter a binding ruling from the Vilnius 3rd Regional Court.
After several days, the Kaunas Regional Court partially granted Daktaras’s request, modifying the Vilnius court’s restrictions. He was permitted to have lunch between noon and 2 p.m. on weekdays at six establishments: “Fortūna,” “Žaliasis putinas,” “Bernelių užeiga,” “Tėvynė,” “Piza Jazz,” at the “Maxima” shopping center, and “Boogie Woogie.”
“We’ll probably go to ‘Maxima,’” Daktaras mused, adding that his family often visited the shopping center and his daughters enjoyed the attractions inside.
Ramutė Daktarienė said she was partially satisfied with the decision, though she would still have to prepare meals for her husband on weekends. The ruling offered a limited, but tangible, improvement to Daktaras’s quality of life following his release.
(“Lietuvos rytas,” 2002)
