Case Summary and Outcome

On 19th December 2023, the European Court of Human Rights held that the domestic authorities violated the applicant’s rights under Articles 8 (privacy), and 10 (freedom of expression), among others, of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case concerned the applicant’s provisional detention, restrictions on disclosing case-related information to the public, and the public disclosure of the applicant’s full name and personal information without his consent. The Court found that these actions disproportionately interfered with the applicant’s right to privacy, and freedom of expression. It concluded that the measures lacked adequate justification to demonstrate that the interference was necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the aims pursued.

---

Facts

The applicant, a Lithuanian national, was a university lecturer, head of a private company, and self-employed consultant at the time of the events in question. He had previously served as President of the Lithuanian Cancer Patient Coalition (POLA), later becoming a member of its board, and had worked as a legal advisor to the President of Lithuania as well as on the management boards of several public health–related bodies.

On 26 February 2020, Lithuania declared a national state of emergency due to the spread of COVID-19, followed by a nationwide lockdown on 16 March 2020. During this time, authorities sought to urgently procure items necessary to manage the pandemic, accepting assistance from individuals not formally affiliated with State institutions.

In March 2020, he assisted the Lithuanian government in procuring COVID-19 tests by contacting government officials and negotiating with a Spanish pharmaceutical company. The plaintiff entered into an agreement with the company to receive €1 for each test sold. Subsequently, the National Public Health Surveillance Laboratory (NVSPL), a public entity supervised by the Ministry of Health, signed contracts with the company for the purchase of 303,360 COVID-19 tests at a total cost of €5,157,120. Between May and June 2020, the company transferred €303,360 to the plaintiff as remuneration under their agreement.

The defendant, represented by the Special Investigations Service (STT) and the prosecutor’s office, alleged that the plaintiff had engaged in unlawful activities during the procurement process. On 21 July 2020, the plaintiff was informed of suspicions of trading in influence, in violation of Article 226 § 4 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code, which penalises the act of using one’s social status, contacts, or supposed influence to request or accept improper benefits in exchange for influencing decision-making processes. It was alleged that the plaintiff had accepted a bribe of €303,360, disguised as commission, and used his status to influence senior government officials to secure contracts for the company.

On 21 July 2020, the plaintiff’s home, car, and office were searched by STT officers. He was detained and questioned but denied the allegations, asserting that he acted as a lawful intermediary. He subsequently filed complaints challenging the lawfulness of his detention, arguing that it was not supported by concrete evidence of risk factors such as intent to flee or obstruct the investigation. These complaints were dismissed by the prosecutor, who cited concerns about potential influence on witnesses and the need to ensure the plaintiff’s availability during the investigation. On 16 October 2020, the plaintiff lodged an appeal, arguing that his detention violated procedural safeguards under Article 140 § 2 of the Lithuanian Code of Criminal Procedure, which requires judicial authorisation before imposing detention. However, on 4 November 2020, the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that decisions by pre-trial judges on provisional detention were final and not subject to further review.

The applicant’s case attracted widespread publicity, starting with a press release from the Special Investigations Service (STT) on 21 July 2020, detailing suspicions of trading in influence related to a high-value COVID-19 test procurement. The STT alleged that the applicant, acting as an intermediary, had unlawfully gained over €300,000. This information was widely disseminated across major news outlets, supplemented by interviews with the STT spokesperson and prosecutors, and was later corrected to clarify the procurement’s value. Media reports featured photographs of the applicant in custody and details of contracts related to the case. The applicant gave several interviews defending his actions as lawful, criticising the authorities, and highlighting his role in saving costs for the State. Following his provisional release and placement under house arrest, he criticised the legal measures against him and denied wrongdoing, arguing that his activities were transparent and approved by government officials.

On 19 August 2020, the applicant was formally warned not to disclose information about the pre-trial investigation. He challenged this restriction, asserting that the authorities themselves had widely publicised details of the case, including his identity and aspects of the investigation, which compelled him to defend his reputation publicly. The senior prosecutor upheld the warning, stating it aimed to protect the investigation and prevent the dissemination of information that could influence the proceedings or require additional protective measures. Despite the restriction, the applicant continued to comment on the case publicly, arguing that the authorities’ actions violated his rights and unfairly influenced public perception against him.

On 19 August 2020, the applicant was formally warned not to disclose information about the pre-trial investigation. He challenged this restriction, asserting that the authorities themselves had widely publicised details of the case, including his identity and aspects of the investigation, which compelled him to defend his reputation publicly. The senior prosecutor upheld the warning, stating it aimed to protect the investigation and prevent the dissemination of information that could influence the proceedings or require additional protective measures. Despite the restriction, the applicant continued to comment on the case publicly, arguing that the authorities’ actions violated his rights and unfairly influenced public perception against him.

Subsequently, the applicant lodged complaints with the prosecutor and a pre-trial investigation judge, disputing the proportionality of the restriction and contesting his classification as a public figure. The senior prosecutor and judge dismissed these complaints, reasoning that his public role justified disclosing his identity and that the restriction was necessary to safeguard the investigation’s integrity. The authorities maintained that their public statements had adhered to general information disclosure guidelines, balancing the public’s right to information with the applicant’s rights. In the following months, additional media coverage and public statements, including parliamentary discussions and press releases, continued to refer to the case, often implying misconduct by the applicant. The applicant persistently criticised these actions, arguing that they infringed on his presumption of innocence and exacerbated the public’s negative perception of him.

On 27 October 2021, the charge of trading in influence was dismissed, as no evidence was found that the plaintiff had exerted actual or supposed influence over government officials. The prosecutor, however, reclassified the allegations as fraud under Article 182 § 2 of the Lithuanian Criminal Code and abuse of office under Article 228 § 2 of the same code. It was alleged that the plaintiff had deceived government officials by failing to disclose his remuneration arrangement and had retroactively signed a commission agreement to justify the payments received. On 28 December 2021, the case was referred to the Vilnius Regional Court, which, on 11 May 2023, acquitted the plaintiff of both charges. The court found no evidence that the plaintiff had been authorised to act as a government representative during the negotiations or that his intermediary role was unlawful. The remuneration paid by the pharmaceutical company was determined to be legitimate and not harmful to the government, as it had not come from public funds. The court ordered the lifting of the seizure of the plaintiff’s property and awarded him €16,811 in litigation costs. However, the prosecutor appealed the acquittal, and as of 20 July 2023, the case remained pending before the appellate court.

The plaintiff’s allegations relied on violations of multiple articles of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), including Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression). He argued that his public criticism of the government’s pandemic response and involvement in civil society activities may have influenced the criminal proceedings against him.

---

Decision Overview

The Court, sitting as a Chamber, delivered a unanimous judgment addressing whether the Lithuanian authorities violated the applicant’s rights under Article 8 (privacy) and Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The main issue before the Court was whether the Lithuanian authorities’ public disclosure of the applicant’s identity and details of his arrest, coupled with a ban on him publicly discussing the case, unlawfully interfered with his rights to privacy and freedom of expression.

The applicant argued that the authorities’ public disclosure of his name, employment history, and details of his arrest damaged his reputation, particularly as he was not a public figure at the time. He also contended that the ban on him discussing the case while authorities and politicians freely commented placed him at a disadvantage, preventing him from defending his reputation. The applicant emphasised that his public statements were merely reactions to the extensive information already disclosed by the authorities.

The Government, on the other hand, defended the authorities’ actions, asserting that the case involved matters of significant public interest, particularly due to its connection to the COVID-19 pandemic and the political context of the 2020 parliamentary elections. They argued that the restrictions on the applicant’s public comments were necessary to protect the integrity of the investigation and prevent the disclosure of confidential information.

The Court’s analysis was grounded in Article 8, which protects the right to respect for private life, and Article 10, which guarantees freedom of expression. Under Article 10, restrictions on freedom of expression must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary in a democratic society.

Regarding the Article 8 violation, the Court found that the authorities’ disclosure of the applicant’s identity and details of his arrest, along with the extensive media coverage, disproportionately interfered with his right to privacy. The Court emphasised that while the public has a legitimate interest in being informed about criminal proceedings, the authorities must balance this with the suspect’s right to privacy and reputation. The Court noted that the applicant was not a public figure at the time, and the authorities’ actions, including releasing statements that morally judged him before his guilt was proven, failed to strike a fair balance. The Court concluded that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society, resulting in a violation of Article 8.

On the Article 10 violation, the Court found that the warning issued to the applicant, which restricted him from disclosing information about the pre-trial investigation, constituted an interference with his freedom of expression. While the interference had a legal basis and pursued legitimate aims (e.g., protecting the integrity of the judiciary), the Court ruled that it was not necessary in a democratic society. The Court noted that a significant amount of information about the case had already been made public by the authorities, and the applicant’s comments were largely reactions to this publicity. The domestic authorities failed to clarify the scope of the restriction or justify why it was necessary, particularly given the high-profile nature of the case and the applicant’s need to defend his reputation. The Court emphasised that “where a case is widely covered in the media on account of the seriousness of the facts and the individuals likely to be implicated, an individual cannot be penalised for breaching the secrecy of the judicial investigation where he or she has merely made personal comments on information which is already known to the journalists and which they intend to report.” [para. 299) Consequently, the Court found a violation of Article 10.

In conclusion, the Court unanimously held that there had been violations of Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention. The authorities’ actions disproportionately interfered with the applicant’s rights to privacy and freedom of expression, failing to meet the necessity test in a democratic society.

---