AFFAIRE MARCINKEVIČIUS c. LITUANIE

• Judgment Date: 15 November 2022
• ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1115JUD002491920
• Counsel: ŠVIRINAS K.
• Date: 15 November 2022
• Application Number: 24919/20
• Court: Second Section (European Court of Human Rights)
• Respondent State: Lituania
• Applied Rules: 10;10-1;10-2

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF MARCINKEVIČIUS v. LITHUANIA

(Application no. 24919/20)

JUDGMENT

Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Domestic courts’ decision ordering applicant, a public figure and influential businessman, to retract statement made in an interview, not “necessary in a democratic society” • Finding of “a statement of fact” not based on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts • Impugned statement to be characterised as “a value judgment”

STRASBOURG

15 November 2022

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Marcinkevičius v. Lithuania,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, President,

Carlo Ranzoni,

Egidijus Kūris,

Pauliine Koskelo,

Jovan Ilievski,

Gilberto Felici,

Diana Sârcu, judges,

and Dorothee von Arnim, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 24919/20) against the Republic of Lithuania lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Lithuanian national, Mr Mindaugas Marcinkevičius (“the applicant”), on 23 June 2020;

the decision to give notice of the application to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”);

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 11 October 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The case concerns a decision by the domestic courts ordering the applicant to retract a statement he had made in an interview, after the courts found it to have been false and defamatory. The applicant complained that the statement in question was a value judgment and that the order to retract it had violated his right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention.

THE FACTS

2. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Vilnius. He was represented by Mr K. Švirinas, a lawyer practising in Vilnius.

3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė-Širmenė.

1. BACKGROUND TO THE CASE

4. The applicant is a founder and shareholder of Vilniaus Prekyba, one of the largest retail companies in the Baltic region.

5. In 2015 he lodged a complaint with the law-enforcement authorities, alleging that Vilniaus Prekyba had, through a series of financial deals, avoided the payment of taxes. He alleged that the deals in question had caused damage to the State and had led to the unjust enrichment of N.N., who was another founder and major shareholder of the company. A pre-trial investigation was opened in August 2015.

6. On 19 August 2016 the prosecutor discontinued the investigation, finding no grounds to believe that the deals in question had been unlawful. The applicant appealed against that decision, but on 21 November 2016 the senior prosecutor upheld it.

7. On 23 November 2016 the applicant asked the prosecutor to reopen the investigation, submitting that new relevant facts had come to light.

8. On 1 December 2016 the applicant replied, in writing, to questions from a journalist of a popular news website, Delfi, for an article about his conflict with N.N. and the ongoing...