Pauliukas v. Lithuania

The Right to a Reputation?

A newspaper published an article alleging a local politician had committed building violations. The politician sued for libel, but lost, the Supreme Court finding that the allegations were based on official reports. He complains that the courts failed to protect his reputation and dignity, in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Is there such a right to reputation? (Keywords: Defamation - Press Freedom - Reputation)

Facts

In November 2003, the Lithuanian newspaper Respublika published an article discussing the disputes of a local politician (Pauliukas) and his wife with their neighbors over the boundaries of their adjacent properties. The article alleged other building and property violations by the couple, stating that they had failed to comply with city orders to stop illegal construction on their small plot of land. Pauliukas alleges that he asked the newspaper to correct factual mistakes in the article, but the newspaper refused to do so. He then filed a civil claim for moral damages and a court-ordered rectification.

In December 2004, the first instance (district) court dismissed the claim for libel, finding that the allegations in the article were based on official reports obtained by the journalist and included fair summaries of comments by both Pauliukas and his neighbors. The district court noted that the city authorities had made findings against him and had otherwise confirmed the truth of some of the neighbors' allegations.

The district court's judgment was overturned on appeal. The appeal court relied on the fact that one of the official documents put forward by the newspaper was only drafted months after the publication of the article; and that the building violation proceedings against Pauliukas were still ongoing at the time of publication, a fact that was known to the reporter.

In November 2005, the Lithuanian Supreme Court reversed the appeal ruling and upheld the district court's orders. The top court noted that Pauliukas was a public figure, co-owner of the property with his wife, and "responsible for any illegal actions by his wife." The official findings of the city's building authorities provided a sufficient and legitimate basis for allegations contained in the journalistic piece, relieving the newspaper of the obligation to conduct any additional verifications.

Open Society Justice Initiative Involvement

The Open Society Justice Initiative filed third-party written comments with the European Court, jointly with the Media Legal Defence Initiative and the Romanian Helsinki Committee.

Arguments

A Right to Reputation? Traditionally the European Court has found no independent right to reputation under Article 8 of the Convention. Reputation could only be considered as a factor when deciding whether there was freedom to publish under Article 10. Recently, some sections of the court appear to have recognized a self-standing right to reputation. Other sections have decided that an injury to reputation only interferes with Article 8 in exceptional circumstances.

Public Image or Personal Integrity. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has interpreted the right to privacy to only protect individuals where there has been an "unlawful attack" on their reputation. Only a serious and unfair attack, based on false facts and driven by malicious intent, effects reputation so severely that it effects self-esteem and personal integrity rather than public image.

The Threshold. The written comments urged the court to adopt a threshold standard in order to prevent a flood of claims for "injury to reputation" that would deter newspapers from publishing legitimate stories, confuse national judges, and flood the court with bad cases.

Timeline

November 2003. Article published in Respublika newspaper. Civil claim for injury to reputation filed.
December 2004. The district court dismisses the claim.
November 2005. Supreme Court of Lithuania finds no violation of the right to reputation.
May 2006. Application filed with ECtHR.
June 2, 2009. Written comments filed by Justice Initiative.

Finding

The case is being considered by the European Court of Human Rights.

Resources

Court Documents (download below)
Written Comments to ECtHR, Justice Initiative and others, June 2009.

Related Cases
HCLU v. Hungary
MGN Ltd v. United Kingdom
Romanenko v. Russia
Kasabova v. Bulgaria

Links
Media Legal Defence Initiative
Helsinki Committee

Additional Resources
"The European Protection of Freedom of Expression: Reflections on Some Recent Restrictive Trends," Strasbourg, October 10, 2008, A Seminar at the European Court of Human Rights.

Need help downloading a file or playing a clip? Click here.