| Abstract [eng] |
EŽTT cases, LR KT jurisprudence and civil, criminal and administrative cases from the courts of Lithuania were analyzed for this study. This analysis determined that freedom of speech is considered one of the most important human rights in a democratic society. The quality of the democracy, the opportunity for expressing the virtues it provides and the progress of society via mechanisms of individual self-expression depend on the adequate actualization of this right. The methodology for balancing and weighing the different human rights established by the Constitution and Convention of the Republic of Lithuania are broadly applied in EŽTT cases and LR KT decisions. The freedom of self-expression, public right to know, right to privacy, derogations of personal honor and dignity and other public interests involved in ad hoc clashes flow from the constitutional state system. However, such a method for balancing and weighing and the application of the principle of proportion are not found in all of Lithuania’s court decisions. Lithuania’s courts do not always use these mechanisms, which are internationally recognized by institutions of jurisprudence when submitting the motives for their decisions, neither in written reports nor in the of court decision resolutions. The analysis of decisions and resolutions by the latest LAT, general courts of Lithuania in other instances and Administrative Courts are made difficult, and often entirely impossible, by the restrictions on disclosure of persons participating in a case. This practice might possibly be justified regarding private persons, but, in cases involving public persons, its judicial relevancy is difficult to understand. The status of public persons which determines the actions by such persons and relates with the handling of matters for the entire society or its groups must assure the public service by such persons and the possibility of critique. Society no longer has the opportunity to learn how such persons are accomplishing their public mission when the data about them are concealed in court cases. Information regarding how many and what type of legal infractions are made by specific public persons is not made available. Confidentiality of such data precludes the public’s interest to learn all the information about such persons’ public activities and the details of their private lives, information which is necessary and justifiable in a democratic society. |
