CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 juin 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s63658818 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s90EB8675 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:53pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:8.2pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA02E51C4 { margin-left:-3.69pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sA46B3B99 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:45.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6FCA49DE { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:45.4pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s18B3BC7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:57.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s599F5480 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s5749FA4E { width:31.55pt; display:inline-block } .s4D5F7D2B { width:138.77pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION CASE OF ALGIRDAS BUTKEVIČIUS v. LITHUANIA (Application no. 70489/17)     JUDGMENT   Art 8 • Correspondence • Private life • Lawful and proportionate disclosure of intercepted telephone conversation between applicant Prime Minister and mayor on matter of public interest, despite impact on applicant’s reputation among colleagues   STRASBOURG 14 June 2022     FINAL   14/09/2022     This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Algirdas Butkevičius v. Lithuania, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, President,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Branko Lubarda,   Gilberto Felici,   Saadet Yüksel,   Peeter Roosma , ad hoc judge,   Diana Sârcu, judges,   and Hasan Bakırcı, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   70489/17) 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   Algirdas Butkevičius (“the applicant”), on 19   September 2017; the decision to give notice of the application to the Lithuanian Government (“the Government”); the withdrawal of Egidijus Kūris, the judge elected in respect of Lithuania, from sitting in the case (Rule 28 § 3 of the Rules of Court) and the decision of the President of the Section to appoint Peeter Roosma to sit as an ad hoc judge (Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1 (a)); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 24 May 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns a complaint by the applicant, who is the former Prime Minister of the Republic of Lithuania, that the State authorities had breached his right to private life and correspondence by disclosing one of his telephone conversations to the media. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Vilnius. He was represented by Ms K.   Čeredničenkaitė, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. 3.     The Government were represented by their Acting Agent, Ms   L.   Urbaitė. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. Background to the case 5 .     The applicant is a politician. He has been a member of the Seimas (the Lithuanian Parliament) since 1996. From 2004 to 2005 he served as Minister of Finance, and from 2006 to 2008 he was Minister of Transport and Communications. In the 2009 elections for the office of President of the Republic of Lithuania the applicant was the candidate for the Lithuanian Social Democrats Party, at that time one of the biggest political parties in Lithuania. He came second, with 12% of the votes. Between 1999 and 2008 he was the deputy chairman of the party, and between 2009 and 2017 he was the chairman. 6.     At the material time, from 22   November 2012 to 21 November 2016, the applicant was the Prime Minister of Lithuania. Criminal investigation regarding the Government’s adoption of Resolution no.   1025 7 .     In 2015 the Kaunas regional prosecutor’s office and the Special Investigations Service were conducting pre-trial investigation no.   03 ‑ 700012-15 – an investigation regarding possible abuse of office (Article   228 §   2 of the Criminal Code) – into allegations of political corruption relating to the process whereby some State territories had had their status as resorts – and thus protected territories – revoked by Government Resolution no.   1025, which was adopted on 23   September 2015. That Resolution was annulled on 2   May 2016 (see also paragraph   46 below). During that investigation a court authorised the recording of R.M.’s telephone conversations; R.M. was the mayor of Druskininkai, a resort town. One of his conversations was with the applicant (see paragraph   8 below). The authorities also intercepted a number of other conversations between R.M. and the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of the Economy, the Chancellor of the Government and other State officials. During those telephone conversations the adoption of a Government resolution on the status of resorts was discussed. 8 .     The intercepted telephone conversation between the applicant and R.M., which took place on 11   August 2015, went as follows: “[The applicant] – Yes. I am listening to you. R.M. – Prime Minister, as concerns the Government resolution which we discussed today, I have found out that it was not the one under consideration at yesterday’s meeting. That one concerned protected areas. [The applicant] – Well, not the one? Well? R.M. – No. Not the one. [The applicant] – I see. R.M. – This one recently has just left the Ministry of Justice, and now the Ministry of the Environment must submit it to the Government; however, it is unclear how long they will take to do it. [The applicant] – I see. OK then. I will [move things along] then. R.M. – This is not the one. And the date is not needed for that one. [The applicant] – OK. R.M. – Since the adoption. [The applicant] – Well, because there were a lot of discussions during the submission, so R.M. – Yes, yes, but there are different things in it, but not that one. 343. [The applicant] – Well, OK. I see. Thanks then. R.M. – Thank you.” 9 .     In the context of that pre-trial investigation, on 10   February 2016 the applicant was questioned as a witness. The applicant stated that a working relationship had existed between him and R.M.: the latter was the President of the Municipalities’ Association, the mayor, and also deputy chairman of the same political party. The applicant stated “I have no informal communication with R.M.” ( Neformaliai su juo nebendrauju ). The applicant did not deny that the conversation (see paragraph   8 above) had taken place. He stated that he had not performed any action to accelerate the Government Resolution of 23   September 2015 being submitted for adoption. He also stated that he did not think that that resolution had been in any way beneficial to R.M.’s personal interests. 10 .     On 12   November 2015 the Seimas passed resolution no.   XII-2017 “On granting the Seimas provisional investigation commission’s powers to the Seimas Anti-Corruption Commission”, instructing its Anti-Corruption Commission to conduct a parliamentary inquiry in order to ascertain and provide a conclusion as to the circumstances on 23   September 2015 in which the Government had adopted Resolution no.   1025, which was just before the court hearing of 29   September 2015, and which had partly annulled the Government’s earlier Resolution on protection of resort zones (for details see Povilonis v. Lithuania (dec.), no.   81624/17, §§   16, 64-67, 7   April 2022). The Seimas considered that Government Resolution no.   1025 could have aggravated the possibilities to protect the public interest ( ar taip nebuvo apsunkintos galimybės ginti viešą interesą ) in the court proceedings related to possibly unlawful construction in the Vijunėlė park territory, and that Resolution no.   1025 could have been adopted without having followed appropriate procedures (ibid.). 11 .     On 23   February 2016 the Seimas Anti-Corruption Commission, referring to Article   4 §   1   (1) of the Law on the Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions (see paragraph   40 below), asked the prosecutor to provide information about when the criminal investigation, regarding possible influence on civil servants when adopting the aforementioned Government resolution, would be completed and a procedural decision that had been taken. 12 .     By a decision of 29   February 2016, the prosecutor discontinued the pre-trial investigation on the basis of Article   3 §   1   (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that is, that no actions which could be characterised as a crime had been performed. The prosecutor’s decision contained transcripts of the telephone conversation between the applicant and R.M. (see paragraph 8 above), as well as transcripts of other telephone conversations (see paragraph   7 above). 13 .     On the same day, complying with the earlier request from the Seimas Anti-Corruption Commission, the prosecutor sent the commission a copy of the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings. As later indicated by the prosecutor during the subsequent criminal proceedings (see paragraph   26 below), and as it transpires from the documents in the Court’s possession, the cover letter typed by the prosecutor and addressed to the commission did not specify that material from the pre-trial investigation could not be disclosed to the public. 14 .     The same day the prosecutor also sent a copy of his decision to the Chief Official Ethics Commission ( Vyriausioji tarnybinės etikos komisija ) (see also paragraphs   34 and 35 below). He referred to Article   214 §   6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 43 below) and considered that the material gathered during the pre-trial investigation showed that there had been a possible breach of other laws, such as the Law on the Adjustment of Public and Private Interests in the Public Service ( Viešųjų ir privačių interesų derinimo valstybinėje tarnyboje įstatymas ) and the Code of Conduct for State Politicians (see paragraph 39 below). Disclosure of the applicant’s telephone conversation with R.M. 15 .     On 1   March 2016 the Seimas Anti-Corruption Commission held a hearing which was open to the public. Some twenty journalists were present at that hearing, including the journalist V.D., who had written articles for the Internet news portal Delfi. The Commission discussed the pre-trial investigation materials. 16 .     On the evening of the same day the Internet news portal Delfi published an article by V.D. entitled “Juicy details in the conversations that were made public: I am fed up here, but at least [I can] relax at your place for an hour or so” ( Išviešintuose pokalbiuose – pikantiškos detalės: čia užknisa protą, pas tave nors užsimiršti valandai kitai ). The article made public extracts from the transcripts of the telephone conversation between the applicant and R.M. (see paragraph 8 above), as well as extracts from some of the other telephone conversations intercepted by the law-enforcement officials in the context of pre-trial investigation no.   03-7-00012-15 which had been reproduced in the prosecutor’s decision of 29   February 2016. The article discussed the circumstances of the adoption of Government Resolution no.   1025 (see paragraph   7 above), and suggested that “nearly half of the Government, including the Prime Minister, were dancing to the music played by the mayor R.M. concerning the business affairs of the so-called Vijūnėlė manor”. The article also referred to the Chairman of the Anti-Corruption Commission stating that the story of the so-called Vijūnėlė manor was a circumstance that allowed for the disclosure of not only possible crimes, but also possible violations of ethics, abuse of power or disciplinary violations by civil servants. Later on, this information was republished by the biggest news portals in the country, as well as aired on television channels (see also paragraph   57 below). Criminal proceedings regarding the disclosure of the telephone conversations to the public 17 .     On 2   March 2016 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General, asking that the persons responsible for disclosing to the media the information which was of restricted use be brought to justice. On 1   April 2016, when questioned as a victim during the pre-trial investigation, the applicant pointed out that criminal investigation no.   03-7-00012-15 had been discontinued, and that in that criminal investigation he had had the procedural status of a witness. He noted that, under Lithuanian law, the use of pre-trial investigation material was strictly regulated, and the unlawful disclosure of such material was punishable. Under the Constitution, as well under the European Convention on Human Rights, a person’s correspondence and telephone conversations were inviolable. Such information which was collected by applying criminal-intelligence measures had to be destroyed once the criminal investigation had been discontinued. 18 .     That being so, the applicant also stated that “data about [his] private life [had] not been disclosed, given that during the telephone conversation [in question] [he] and R.M. [had] discussed only work-related matters, in particular, a specific resolution by the Government”. He nevertheless considered that the disclosure of his telephone conversation to the media had breached his rights as a politician and a private person, since because of that he, as a politician and a private person, had suffered serious psychological damage, for there had been a great deal of negative writing about those telephone conversations in the press. The applicant pointed out that this would “clearly have an impact on [his] career as a politician, and on the Social Democrats Party led by [him]”. He also stated that the disclosure of the telephone conversation had had negative consequences for him as a private person, since when attending certain events he had heard several negative comments regarding those disclosed telephone conversations, despite the fact that there had been nothing criminal in the conversations, and the criminal proceedings which had examined those conversations had been discontinued. The applicant considered that the telephone conversations had been made public for political gain – to harm him as a person, the Social Democrats Party and the Government. He thought that it was the Anti-Corruption Commission which was “most liable” for that disclosure. Lastly, he pointed out that the telephone number for which calls had been intercepted had been his work mobile telephone number, which had been issued to him when he had become a member of the Seimas, and that that number had not been publicly available. 19 .     On an unknown date R.M. also lodged an application with the Prosecutor General, complaining about the disclosure of the pre-trial investigation material at the Seimas Anti-Corruption Commission hearing of 1   March 2016. He was granted the procedural status of a victim in the context of that pre-trial investigation. The mayor R.M. considered that the disclosure of his telephone conversations had been damaging to his reputation as a politician, because it had intentionally created a negative opinion about him and had tendentiously provided distorted information, without reflecting the essence of the conversations. 20.     On 7   March 2016 the Minister of the Environment also lodged an application with the Prosecutor General, in which he complained about the disclosure of the pre-trial investigation material. His arguments were similar to those of the applicant. 21 .     On 10   March 2016 the Prosecutor General’s Office started pre-trial investigation (no.   01-2-00056-16) into the possible disclosure by the members of the Seimas Anti-Corruption Commission of non-public material from the pre-trial investigation file (Article   247 of the Criminal Code), and also into the possible disclosure of information regarding the private life of an individual (Article   168 § 1 of the Criminal Code). 22 .     When questioned as a witness on 30   March 2016, the journalist V.D. stated that she had been present at the Commission’s hearing of 1   March 2016; this had not been the first hearing on the matter of the adoption of the Government resolution, and also not the first hearing at which she had been present. In V.D.’s opinion, the hearing of 1   March 2016 had been public: some twenty journalists had been present. She said that during the hearing the members of the Anti-Corruption Commission had publicly cited and discussed the transcripts of the telephone recordings of the conversations between the applicant and R.M., and between R.M. and the Minister of the Environment, as well as other telephone conversations. The journalist stated that the quotes from those telephone conversations which she had used afterwards in her article (see paragraph below) were the ones that she had heard during that public hearing of the Anti-Corruption Commission. 23 .     By a decision of 5 October 2016, the prosecutor discontinued the pre–trial investigation, on the grounds that no crime had been committed. The prosecutor found that the telephone conversation between the applicant and R.M., as well as that between R.M. and the Minister of the Environment, which had been reproduced in the prosecutor’s decision to discontinue criminal case no.   03 ‑ 7 ‑ 00012 ‑ 15, concerned work-related matters, and did not fall within the sphere of private life. Neither the applicant nor the Minister of the Environment had proved the opposite, nor had the mayor of Druskininkai. 24 .     In reaching that conclusion, the prosecutor also relied on the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 23   October 2002 to the effect that all the persons in this case – the applicant (as the Prime Minister), the Minister of the Environment – and the mayor of a town, had been public figures to whom higher moral standards applied (see paragraph   45 below). Moreover, according to the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 8   May 2000, the activities of State and municipal officials linked to the implementation of functions of the State and municipal authorities and administrations were always of a public nature (see paragraph   44 below). As could be seen from the situation at hand, the question of adoption of the Government’s resolution abolishing resort zones had had great importance for the public, therefore there had been a public interest, protected by the Constitution, for society to be informed about such pressing matters. 25 .     As to Article 247 of the Criminal Code – the unlawful disclosure of material in a pre-trial investigation file – referring to the case-law of the Supreme Court, the prosecutor considered that only participants in criminal proceedings could be held criminally responsible under Article   247 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph 42 below). The members of the Seimas Anti-Corruption Commission and the representatives of the media who had been present at the commission’s hearing of 1   March 2016 had not been participants in the criminal proceedings in case no.   03 ‑ 7 ‑ 00012 ‑ 15, and therefore they could not be subjected to criminal liability under Article   247 of the Criminal Code. The prosecutor also noted that the members of the Anti–Corruption Commission had not been prohibited from disclosing the pre-trial investigation data, and they had not been warned of any criminal liability under Article   247 of the Criminal Code, so it would be unreasonable to hold that they could be subjected to such criminal liability. The same went for the journalist V.D. Moreover, the commission’s hearing of 1   March 2016 had been public, and in the prosecutor’s view, under the Law on the Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions, there had been no reason to organise it as a non-public hearing. 26 .     Lastly, one could also not question the actions of the prosecutor who had sent the decision to discontinue the criminal proceedings (see paragraph   13 above) to the Anti-Corruption Commission. The commission had had the right to obtain such information, pursuant to Article   4 §   1 of the Law on the Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions (see paragraph   40 below). In taking a decision to send a copy of that decision to the Anti-Corruption Commission, and in not warning the commission that the data from the pre-trial investigation file was not to be made public, the prosecutor, who had relied on Article   214 §   6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 43 below), had also not breached the requirements applicable to the criminal proceedings. It followed that no crime under Article 247 had been committed. 27.     The applicant, who relied on Article   8 of the Convention, and the Minister of the Environment then appealed against the prosecutor’s decision, but on 23   November 2016 a higher prosecutor rejected their appeals. 28 .     On 29 December 2016 the applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Vilnius City District Court, which considered that the prosecutors’ decisions had been well reasoned, and that the telephone conversation in question (see paragraph   8 above) could not be considered to have contained information about a person’s private life. Rather, that information related “exclusively [to] work and [public] service-related matters”, therefore the element of the crime set out in Article   168 of the Criminal Code was not present. 29.     On the basis of an appeal lodged by the applicant, the Vilnius Regional Court then returned the case for fresh examination, on the grounds that the first-instance court had not answered the applicant’s complaint of a possible breach of Article 247 of the Criminal Code, that is, the complaint that the pre-trial investigation had not established who had disclosed the pre-trial investigation material to the media. 30 .     On 10   February 2017 the Vilnius City District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court found that the conversation between the applicant and the mayor had not related to the applicant’s private life: they had only discussed the circumstances of the adoption of a Government resolution related to territorial planning, and not any matters relating to their personal or family life, or any other spheres of private life. Furthermore, there had been a professional relationship between them – one was the Prime Minister and the other was a mayor. In addition, R.M. was deputy chairman of the same political party to which the applicant belonged. In addition, the applicant himself, when questioned during the first criminal investigation on 10   February 2016, had stated that he had not maintained any relations with the mayor unrelated to work (see paragraph   9 above). Likewise, when questioned on 1   April 2016 in the context of the second criminal investigation (see paragraph   18 above), the applicant had stated that during the telephone conversation in question information related to his private life had not been divulged. Thus, finding that no private life had been discussed in the relevant conversation, the court held that the publication of the transcript of the conversation could not have infringed the applicant’s right to respect for his private life. It further referred to the Court’s judgments in Craxi v. Italy (no.   2) (no.   25337/94, 17 July 2003) and Drakšas v. Lithuania (no.   36662/04, 31   July 2012), as stating the principle that public figures were inevitably more exposed to scrutiny, but nevertheless should be guaranteed the right to privacy. The court observed that because of his position as Prime Minister, his work-related activity and his participation in public life, the applicant was a prominent politician, and that the pre-trial investigation and the telephone conversation had concerned a matter of public interest – allegations of corruption in territorial planning, which society had a legitimate interest in knowing about. Accordingly, no issue could arise under Article   168 §   1 of the Criminal Code. 31 .     The Vilnius City District Court also noted that the members of the Seimas Anti-Corruption Commission had not been party to criminal proceedings no.   03-7-00012-15. Nor had they been warned not to disclose the material from the pre-trial investigation file, or warned about possible criminal liability under Article   247 of the Criminal Code. At the same time, those persons had had a right to see the material from the pre-trial investigation file, as noted in Article   4 §   1 of the Law on the Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions. The prosecutor, once asked to do so, had been obliged to provide the commission with a copy of his decision. In the court’s view, this meant that the commission members could not be held liable under Article   247 of the Criminal Code for having disclosed the material from that case. 32 .     By a final ruling of 20   March 2017, the Vilnius Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal and left the first-instance court’s decision unchanged. The disclosed information had been linked to the professional activity of a State official. The applicant had been a public figure because of the duties he had been performing at the relevant time, as the Prime Minister. Given that Article   168 §   1 of the Criminal Code protected only information of a private nature, and that the information disclosed related to a certain event – the adoption of the Government’s resolution related to territorial planning, and the actions of certain State officials – this information, which had attracted much public interest, was not private, and its disclosure could not attract criminal liability under the above-mentioned provision of the Criminal Code. 33 .     As to the other provision of the Criminal Code, Article   247, the Vilnius Regional Court shared the first-instance court’s conclusions in their entirety (see paragraph   31 above). The applicant’s exoneration by the Chief Official Ethics Commission 34 .     By a decision of 18   March 2016, the Chief Official Ethics Commission (hereinafter “the Ethics Commission”) informed the prosecutor (see paragraph   14 above) that it would not institute an investigation into the circumstances of the adoption of Government Resolution no.   1025 of 23   September 2015. 35 .     The Ethics Commission pointed out that the prosecutor’s decision to discontinue criminal proceedings (see paragraphs   7 and 12 above) lacked any concrete data or circumstances which would prove that the persons mentioned in that decision – the Minister of the Environment K.T., the Minister of the Economy E.G., the applicant (as the Prime Minister) and the Chancellor of the Government A.M. – had had any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interest in having that Government resolution adopted. The Ethics Commission also pointed out that the Government resolution in question had been a legal act of “general application, in contrast to individual legal acts” ( norminis, o ne individualus teisės aktas ), and thus it had not had a concrete beneficiary. The Ethics Commission also held that the above-mentioned persons had only been fulfilling their work-related duties. As for R.M., he was not a member of the Government, and did not participate in passing legal acts as part of that State institution. The prosecutor’s decision likewise lacked information proving that the adoption of that Government resolution would have had an impact on R.M.’s private property or on him personally. The Ethics Commission lastly emphasised that, pursuant to the case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court, a conflict of interest could not be established merely on the basis of suppositions or guesses. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE 36 .     Article   22 of the Constitution protects private life. 37 .     The Law on Providing Information to Society ( Visuomenės informavimo įstatymas ) read as follows at the relevant time: Article 14. Protection of Private Life “1. In producing and disseminating public information, it is mandatory to ensure a person’s right to have his personal and family life respected. ... 3. Information concerning private life may be published without a person’s consent in cases where the publication of the information does not cause harm to the person or where the information assists in uncovering violations of the law or crimes ... In addition, information about the private life of a public figure may be disseminated without his or her consent, if such information discloses circumstances of that person’s private life or his or her character traits which [are of] public interest.” 38 .     The Law on the Government ( Vyriausybės įstatymas ) at the material time read: Article 4. Basic Principles of the Activities of the Government “The Government shall ground its activities on the principles of collegiality, democracy, lawfulness and openness.” 39 .     At the material time the Code of Conduct for State Politicians ( Valstybės politikų elgesio kodeksas ) read: Article 2. Definitions “1. “State politicians” shall mean persons who are elected, in accordance with the procedure set forth by laws, as a member of the Seimas, President of the Republic, a member of the European Parliament, a member of a municipal council or a mayor of a municipality, or appointed as a member of Government or a deputy mayor of a municipality. ... 4. “Private life” shall mean the personal, home and domestic, and intimate life of a State politician, as well as his activities not related to the duties of a State politician, political activities or the institution in which he holds office. The conduct or personal features of a State politician that are related to certain circumstances of his private life and are likely to have influence over public interests shall not be considered [to constitute] private life. ... 6. “Political activities” shall mean a State politician’s actions, conduct and participation in the activities of representative and executive institutions during his tenure. 7. “Public interests” shall mean a public interest that in public life a politician would act in compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and its legal acts and would take decisions only for the benefit of the State, a municipality and the society. 8. “Public life” shall mean a State politician’s political activities as well as a State politician’s conduct not related to his private life.” Article 4. Principles of Conduct of State Politicians “In public life, a State politician shall adhere to the following principles of conduct: ... 3) honesty – shall perform his duties honestly and adhere to the highest standards of conduct, and avoid situations that may influence taking the decisions that may raise doubts in the society; 4) transparency and publicity – when taking decisions, shall not raise doubts as to honesty, reveal the motives of his conduct and decisions to society, always upkeep the principles of openness and publicity, except for the cases specified by laws restricting the disclosure of information, and declare his private interests; ... 6) exemplarity – shall act properly in public and adhere to the universally accepted norms of morality, morals and ethics; 7) selflessness – shall serve the state and public interests, avoid any apparent or real conflict of public and private interests, and, in the event of such conflict, undertake all the required measures to resolve them promptly and make them coincide with the public interests, and shall not use his post or position seeking to influence the decision to be taken by another person, which might be beneficial for the politician or a person closely related to him; ...” 40 .     The Law on the Seimas Provisional Investigation Commissions ( Seimo laikinųjų tyrimo komisijų įstatymas ) read as follows at the material time: Article 4. Rights of the Commission “1. The Commission has the right: 1) to be familiarised with all the information relevant to the investigation, and to receive documents, data or information from all State and other institutions ... even if they contain State or ... professional secret[s] ... ... 5) having agreed with General Prosecutor’s Office ... or pre-trial investigation institution, to see the criminal case-file or other materials or documents that are [in the prosecutor’s] possession; ...” 41 .     The Law on the Seimas Anti-Corruption Commission ( Seimo antikorupcijos komisijos įstatymas ), in so far as relevant, reads as follows: Article 2. Tasks of the Commission “The tasks of the Commission shall be as follows: 1) to investigate the phenomena of corruption and instances linked with it, adopt decisions on the basis of the issues being examined and control how the institutions are implementing them; 2) analyse the decisions of State and municipal institutions and agencies and enterprises, which create the conditions for corruption and crimes and other violations of the law in the economic and financial systems, to seek that such decisions be abolished; ...” Article 3. Rights of the Commission “1. The Commission shall have the right to: 1) obtain the necessary information from ... General Prosecutor’s Office, Supreme Court of Lithuania, State Control, Special Investigation Service, State Security Department and other State and municipal institutions, enterprises, agencies and organisations; ... 3) invite State officers and civil servants and other persons to meetings; ... 5) in accordance with the procedure established by laws to obtain information, which comprises official or State secrets ...” Article 6. Procedure in Respect of the Commission’s Work “2. The Commission’s hearings shall, as a rule, be held publicly. Closed hearings, which may only be attended by persons invited by the Commission, may be held as per a decision of the Commission. ...” 42 .     At the material time the Criminal Code read: Article 168. Unauthorised Disclosure or Use of Information About a Person’s Private Life “1. A person who, without another person’s consent, makes public [or] uses for his own benefit or for the benefit of another person information about the private life of another person, where he gains access to that information through his service or profession or in the course of performing a temporary assignment ..., shall be punished by community service, a fine, restriction of liberty, arrest or imprisonment for a term of up to three years.” Article 247. Unauthorised Disclosure of Pre-trial Investigation Data “A person who discloses pre-trial investigation data prior to the hearing of a case at a court sitting, without the authorisation of a judge, prosecutor or pre-trial investigation officer investigating the case, shall be considered to have committed a misdemeanour, and shall be punished by community service, a fine, restriction of liberty or arrest.” 43 .     At the material time the Code of Criminal Procedure read: Article 177. Non-disclosure of Pre-trial Investigation Data “1. Information about a pre-trial investigation shall not be made public. It may be made public only subject to a prosecutor’s authorisation, and only to such an extent as is determined permissible... 2. Where necessary, the prosecutor or the official [in charge] of the pre-trial investigation warns the participants in the [criminal] proceedings or other persons who have seen the actions performed in the pre-trial investigation proceedings that it is forbidden to make public the information from the pre-trial investigation. In such cases, a person is warned about criminal liability under Article 247 of the Criminal Code and provides a signature [confirming this].” Article 214. Order Discontinuing a Pre-trial Investigation “1. ... [T]he pre-trial investigation is discontinued by the prosecutor’s decision ... ... 6. If the pre-trial investigation material contains information about an administrative-law offence or a violation of a law provided for in other legal acts, when adopting the decision to discontinue the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor transfers that material in accordance with the rules set out in the Code of Administrative Law Offences or rules set out in other legal acts ...” 44 .     In its ruling of 8   May 2000 on operational activities, the Constitutional Court held: “The legal concept of private life is linked to the state of an individual when the individual may expect privacy, or with legitimate expectations of private life. When the person carries out actions of a public nature and comprehends this, or must comprehend this or is capable of understanding this, whether at home or on other private premises, then such actions of a public nature will not enjoy protection under Article 22 of the Constitution and Article 8 of the Convention, and the person may not expect privacy. The activities of State and municipal officials linked to the implementation of functions of the State and municipal authorit[ies] and administration[s] are always of a public nature. ... The Constitutional Court notes that a person who commits criminal deeds or ones which are contrary to the law must not and may not expect privacy. The limits of protection of an individual’s private life disappear in cases when, through criminal or otherwise unlawful actions, [that individual] violates interests protected by law, [or] inflicts damage on particular persons, society or the State.” 45 .     In its ruling of 23 October 2002 on protection of a public figure’s private life and a journalist’s right not to disclose a source of information, the Constitutional Court held: “8. ... [P]ersonal characteristics, behaviour and certain circumstances of the private life of persons participating in social and political activities may be of importance to public matters. The public’s interest in knowing more about these persons than others has a constitutional basis. That interest would not be secured if, in every particular case, when publishing information of public importance about the private life of a person participating in social and political activities, that person’s consent was necessary. Thus, the media may inform the public about such a person’s private life without [that person’s] consent, inasmuch as personal characteristics, behaviour and certain circumstances of that person’s private life may be of importance to public matters, and therefore the information published is of public importance. The person participating in social and political activities [must] anticipate more attention from the public and the media. Such persons, as a rule, are called public figures. Persons who, because of the office that they hold or the nature of the work that they perform, participate in public life should primarily be categorised as public figures. These are politicians, State and municipal officials [and] heads of public organisations. Other persons may also be considered public figures if their activity is of importance to public affairs.” 46 .     By its ruling of 8   July 2016 on the procedure for adopting legal acts of the Government, and in the context of the adoption of Government Resolution no.   1025, the Constitutional Court held (summary by the Constitutional Court; see also Povilonis , cited above, §   67): “In the constitutional justice case at issue, [which was] initiated subsequent to the petition of the President of the Republic requesting an investigation into whether Government Resolution (no.   1025) of 23   September 2015 – whereby the Special Conditions for the Use of Land and Forests had been amended – was compliant with the Constitution and laws, in view of the procedure by which it had been adopted, the Constitutional Court ... noted that under the Constitution, legal acts must be passed in accordance with the established procedural law-making requirements, including the requirements established by the law-making subject itself. Institutions of State authority must also follow the requirements of publicity and transparency [in respect] of law-making procedures, deriving from the constitutional principle of responsible governance, which is to be interpreted in conjunction with the imperative obliging State institutions to serve the people ... Compliance with these requirements is an essential condition for public trust in the State and law, as well as for the responsibility of State authorities towards the public... While interpreting ... the Constitution ... the Constitutional Court has noted on more than one occasion that, when passing legal acts, the Government must observe the laws that are in force, including those establishing the procedure for adopting legal acts. [They] must follow the procedure for the drafting, assessment, coordination and consideration of Government resolutions, as well as [the procedure] for voting on them, which is established by laws. ... Under the Constitution, the stages and rules of the procedure for the adoption of legal acts of the Government as established in law and other legal acts must be observed while any draft legal act of the Government is being prepared, irrespective of whether this legal act is aimed at amending (correcting) the legal regulation, establishing a new one, or annulling the effective one. ... The part of the case concerning the disputed Government Resolution’s [no.   1025] compliance with the Constitution and laws, in view of the procedure for its adoption, was dismissed, with regard to the fact that this Resolution was annulled by the Government Resolution of 2   May 2016 [in an effort] to dispel doubts as to [the disputed resolution’s] legitimacy. ... After the legal act in question had been removed from the legal system, the investigation into its compliance with the Constitution and laws, in view of the procedure for its adoption, would be an end in itself. The Constitutional Court noted that, as was obvious from the material of the case, in the course of adopting the Government Resolution in question, certain violations of the procedure for the preparation, coordination, consideration and adoption of legal acts of the Government could have been committed; additionally, according to the Constitutional Court, it was not obvious from the data in the case that there had been any exceptional circumstances objectively justifying the urgent placement – not agreed beforehand with the competent institutions – of the draft Resolution in question on the agenda of the Government’s sitting without the ordinary procedure established in the Rules of Procedure of the Government being followed.” 47 .     On 12   December 2018 the enlarged chamber of the Supreme Court delivered a ruling in case no.   e3K-7-471-403/2018. The case concerned a complaint by a business entity which had been lodged against the State Security Department in connection with information gathered under the Law on Intelligence and provided by the State Security Department to the Seimas Committee on National Security and Defence. The business entity had attempted to start civil proceedings for defamation of its business reputation, arguing that the information which the State Security Department had provided to the Seimas committee had been revealed to the media. The first-instance and appellate courts had refused to accept the business entity’s claim for examination. The Supreme Court, however, overturned those court decisions. The cassation court highlighted that the existing legal regul