| Abstract [eng] |
The concept of a public figure is a relatively new but rapidly developing legal institution that emerged from the need to balance freedom of the media with the protection of individual privacy. Historically, the phenomenon of publicity has existed in all periods; however, in modern law it has acquired new significance, particularly due to the development of digital technologies and social media. The concept of a public figure evolves differently across states: in some cases it may be restricted by political context, while in others it is regulated in detail. In Lithuania, this concept is particularly broad, encompassing not only traditional public figures (such as politicians, civil servants, and judges) but also any person known in society. As a result, national regulation in Lithuania raises concerns about unjustified limitations on the scope of private life and increasing legal uncertainty. For this reason, it is necessary to define more clearly the criteria for identifying a public figure. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) plays a crucial role in shaping the concept of a public figure, even though it is not explicitly defined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court interprets the Convention as a “living instrument,” adapting it to changing social and legal norms. In its jurisprudence, the ECtHR consistently develops a balance between the right to respect for private life and freedom of expression. This balance is assessed according to three main criteria: whether the restriction is prescribed by law, whether it pursues a legitimate aim, and whether it is necessary in a democratic society. The ECtHR also performs an important function by identifying gaps in national legal frameworks and responding promptly to emerging challenges. Analysis of ECtHR case law reveals clearly developed main categories of public figures. Politicians enjoy the least protection of privacy and are subject to the widest limits of criticism and public debate, as they voluntarily participate in public life and are directly accountable to society. Civil servants are afforded somewhat greater protection of privacy, as they act as implementers of political decisions and are subject to duties of loyalty and discretion. Judges enjoy even broader privacy protection; however, their conduct is subject to strict scrutiny due to the need to maintain the authority of the judiciary and public trust in the justice system. In addition, other well-known individuals (such as businesspeople or public entertainers) may also be considered public figures, depending on their role in society. When resolving conflicts between freedom of expression and privacy, the ECtHR relies on criteria established in its jurisprudence, including the contribution of the information to a matter of public interest, the degree of the person’s notoriety, their relationship with publicity, the manner in which the information is presented, and the legality of how it was obtained. It is emphasized that information cannot be published solely to satisfy public curiosity, and even public figures retain the right to private life, especially where they have not sought publicity or where the information has been obtained unlawfully. |
