Initiates process update
Chairman of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania on Monday morning Gintaras Kryževičius Delphi informed that the case would be re-examined.
The President of the Court has the right to initiate a review of the case in cases where the decision of the judges causes great resonance in society and when the decision of the judges raises doubts.
“The submission for the resumption of the proceedings in the case you are interested in will be. I will finish the motives by noon. I will sign, we will put in our e-mail. case card. Then I will report, because only then the submission will become a procedural document, ”G. Kryževičius pointed out.
Delphi asked the president of the court last week whether he intended to resume the proceedings, but then he had no answer yet.
Gintaras Kryževičius
© Kęstutis Vanagas
–
Disclosed the identity of the shareholder of the company that won the purchases
The story described by the portal “Atvira Klaipėda” would look completely classic – the company, the owner of which had only recently gone into politics, won the public procurement. Interestingly, his mother held a high position in the municipal company that organized the purchase. There have been legal disputes for several years as to whether it is possible to disclose the name of a businessman whose company has won a public procurement.
And finally on October 6th. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania stated that such information could not be made public. This decision is no longer subject to appeal.
At the end of December 2019, Atvira Klaipėda announced the purchases made by the company Gatvių aplinkvietimas in 2017-2019 – almost 2.3 million. 40 contracts for various goods and services with the company Namų kultas, which was renamed Ecomas in the same year.
According to the portal, the Public Procurement Office, after an unscheduled inspection, found that one of the contracts – 1.375 mln. in breach of the principle of transparency enshrined in law and recommended that the contract be terminated.
Atvira Klaipėda also informed in the publication that the only shareholder of Ecomas since 2014 is a member of the Liberal Movement, who participated in the municipal elections in Klaipėda district in 2019, and is the son of the company’s current or former financier.
The final and unappealable ruling of the SACL states that at the end of December 2019 the shareholder of the company mentioned in the article applied to the Office of the Inspector of Journalistic Ethics with a complaint stating that the information in the publication may affect street lighting data – full name – it violates his honor and dignity.
The petitioner, the public institution Klaipėda Openly, filed a complaint with the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, requesting the annulment of the Office of the Inspector of Journalistic Ethics in 2020. July 13 part of the decision “On the information published in the publication“ Over the Head of the Head of the Municipal Enterprise – Sword of Damocles ”(www.atviraklaipėda.lt, 27 December 2019)”, which decided: 1) to recognize the complaint of the AV against the publication sword ”is partially substantiated; 2) to express a reprimand to Klaipėda Openly for the 2016 April 27 Article 5 (1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46 / EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (BDAR) ( (a) and Article 6 (1) (a).
© DELFI / Josvydas Elinskas
–
The media tried to prove in court that the businessman she described was not a private person. “The decision unreasonably concludes that AV is a private person. AV is recognized as a public person while participating in Klaipėda district municipal elections. According to the information published on the website of the Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Lithuania, it is evident that when applying for the AV in 2019. in the municipal council elections, disclosed part of his personal data, including his special personal data, ie his name, date of birth, data on convictions, assets and income received, declared private interests, etc. “, – the arguments of journalists were presented in the court order.
Representatives of the editorial board took the position in court that the decision of the Office of the Inspector of Journalistic Ethics denied the legitimate interest of the public to know and be informed about the implementation of public procurement and related issues.
“Public procurement and the use of public funds determine the application of extremely high standards, transparency, legitimacy in this area and, accordingly, a greater public interest in being interested in and receiving information in this area. When publishing the publication, the petitioner sought to provide extensive, but necessary and relevant to the public information regarding the public procurements carried out by UAB Gatvių evaismaism managed by Klaipėda City Municipality, their violations, interested persons and potential beneficiaries. With the topic of public procurement being particularly relevant and important for the whole society and other entities, the public interest prevails and outweighs in all respects the private interests of the legal entity operating in the public service and its beneficiaries. are unfounded ‘,
The court ruled unfavorably
The Office of the Inspector of Journalistic Ethics, meanwhile, took a different view. She asked to dismiss the media complaint as unfounded. In its reply, the Authority stated that the applicant applied the public figure too broadly. However, the panel of judges of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, consisting of judges Laimutis Alechnavičius (chairman and rapporteur of the panel), Ramūnas Gadliauskas and Dalia Višinskienė, made a decision unfavorable to journalists. It was decided to dismiss the appeal of the petitioner Klaipėda Avai.
“Vilnius Regional Administrative Court 2020 November 16 decision to leave unchanged. To order the third interested person AV from the applicant’s public institution Klaipėda OPEN to reimburse the costs of EUR 1,210 (one thousand two hundred and ten euros), ”the court ruling states.
The court relied on the following argument: “In the opinion of the panel of judges, in the present case there is no dispute that the third party concerned does not have public administration powers, does not administer public services, does not regularly participate in state or public activities. The file confirms that the public procurement referred to in the publication involved a private legal entity whose shareholder is AV and not AV itself.
In addition, the Authority was informed that a third party interested party in 2019 in the municipal council elections with the list of Klaipėda district of the Liberal Movement, is not and was not a member of the Liberal Movement party. In those circumstances, it must be held that the third party concerned cannot be regarded as a public person within the meaning of Article 2 (78) of the SO, since its publication did not involve the exercise of official authority or the administration of public services or other public affairs. Moreover, the company in which AV is a shareholder does not provide a public service. ‘
There was a stir
A huge scandal erupted after the court ruling unfavorable to the editorial board. Critical views were expressed not only by journalists, media scholars, but also by some lawyers.
Critics have argued that this deprives the public of the right to know.
The chairman of the Union of Journalists Dainius Radzevičius strictly assessed this court decision. According to him, this has created a very bad precedent, which will do great damage to the entire Lithuanian media and the public’s right to know.
“Frankly, the court’s decision was disappointing. It saddened everyone who watched this case. Because this case is an important precedent if we look at the perspective of any journalist who is interested in the use of public money, the people who are involved in receiving and spending that money. The view is formed that the public does not, in principle, need to know about those people who they are, as if it is redundant information. It worried me. Journalism then becomes no longer journalism, because accuracy is particularly important in journalism. First is this criterion.
Dainius Radzevičius
–
With us very often, as has been the case in this case, someone’s privacy is treated on a very broad scale that needs to be very protected, not to mention. Meanwhile, if we’re talking about the public’s right to know, then I have a hard time understanding what privacy is protected here. It’s not about the intimate issues of a person’s life, a person’s health. It is simply a disclosure of the facts, how and who benefited. It seems to me important to know that journalists also ensure the function of accuracy. Many of the court’s generalizations distort the essence of journalism and precisely allow the news to be interpreted and manipulated, essentially creating a sense of uncertainty. Looking to the future, I don’t know if the court should have looked at this issue so narrowly. Maybe he looked at one piece of legislation or another, but didn’t look at the whole context. The context here is that the journalist did not collect that private data for himself, ”said D. Radzevičius.
The journalistic community issued a statement
The community of journalists expressed solidarity with the Klaipėda news portal Atvira Klaipėda and on Friday issued a statement calling for the protection of the right to information after the court rejected the complaint against the unfavorable decision of the Office of the Inspector of Journalistic Ethics.
“We, journalists and the media, do not agree that, under the guise of national or international law, public authorities should substantially restrict the application of the concept of public person and thus deprive the public of their right to information,” the statement said on Friday.
In the statement, the media community states that it expresses its solidarity with the editorial board of Atviros Klaipėda and notes that its desire to defend the right to information must go to the Constitutional Court and international bodies and promises support for these initiatives.
According to the media, the authorities are increasingly using the General Data Protection Regulation (BDAR) as a pretext to limit the amount of information or to refuse to provide information altogether. “This and subsequent decisions of administrative courts, in our opinion, fundamentally change the norms of democracy, the public’s right to information and the right of journalists to accurately and correctly inform the practice in Lithuania,” the statement said.
It was signed by the Lithuanian national and regional media, the associations uniting them, and the journalists themselves. The application was also signed by the portals Delfi, 15 min, lrytas.lt, news agencies BNS and ELTA, the National Broadcaster, LNK, TV3 and other media.
Journalists note that they are convinced that “extremely diligent and excessive protection of the privacy of public persons” must not deprive the public of the right to information about the non-transparent activities of government institutions and persons related to them, possible corruption and nepotism.
The statement also emphasizes that the fundamental role of the constitutional freedom of information, including the right of the media to seek, receive and disseminate information and ideas without hindrance, in order to ensure and develop the ideal of an open, just and harmonious civil society has been repeatedly emphasized by the Constitutional Court. .
“We are convinced that the newly formed practice of administrative courts contradicts these values formed by the Constitutional Court and prevents the media from contributing to the fostering and preservation of the democratic order. “The services of the Inspector of Journalistic Ethics and some decisions of individual courts regarding the erroneous application of the BDAR create a dangerous trend, when the already established principles of public right to information and freedom of speech are not defended, but largely denied,” the statement said.
–
It is strictly forbidden to use the information published by DELFI on other websites, in the media or elsewhere, or to distribute our material in any form without consent, and if consent has been obtained, it is necessary to indicate DELFI as the source.
