CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 March 2024   SECOND SECTION Application no. 27313/23 Rita MILIŪTĖ and Vilma DANAUSKIENĖ against Lithuania lodged on 3 July 2023 communicated on 4 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns journalists’ access to information held by State authorities and remedies against the authorities’ refusal to provide such information. On 3 October 2018 the Lithuanian government held a consultative meeting ( pasitarimas ) in which it discussed a draft amendment to the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public. The draft amendment proposed that journalists would have the right to receive information from the Centre of Registers for free. The government decided not to support it. The applicants are journalists. They asked the Office of the Government for a copy of an audio recording of the consultative meeting. The Office refused that request, stating that consultative meetings were closed to the public and that their audio recordings were intended for internal use only. The applicants were informed that they could access the written minutes of the meeting and that the audio recording in question had been deleted. They lodged a complaint against the Office of the Government with the administrative courts, and in the final decision taken on 23   July 2020 the Supreme Administrative Court found that the Office had violated the applicants’ right to receive and impart information. The applicants then instituted administrative-offence proceedings, in which they asked the courts that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Government and the Prime Minister’s advisor on public relations be held liable for an administrative offence provided in Article 547 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Offences (refusal to provide information to the media or obstructing journalists in the fulfilment of their professional duties). They also claimed 1,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage each. The courts found that an administrative offence had not been committed. In the final decision taken on 24   October 2022, the Supreme Court held that, under Article   547   §   1, administrative liability arose for refusing to provide information to the media without giving any reasons, but the Office had given the reasons why the audio recording could not be provided to journalists. The applicants lodged a constitutional complaint, alleging that Article   547   §   1 of the Code of Administrative Offences was not compatible with the Constitution because it did not provide for an adequate possibility to hold liable those who refused to provide information to the media. On 12   April 2023 the Constitutional Court refused to examine the complaint, finding no grounds to doubt the constitutionality of the impugned provision. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1, Article 10 and Article   13 of the Convention that the domestic authorities failed to adequately remedy the violation of their right to receive and impart information. In particular, they submit that since the audio recording in question has been deleted, the only effective remedy would have been holding liable the individuals who had been responsible for its deletion and awarding the applicants compensation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants complied with the time-limit laid down in Article   35   §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was an individual complaint before the Constitutional Court a remedy which needed to be exhausted in the circumstances of the present case (see, mutatis mutandis , Petrova v.   Latvia , no. 4605/05, § 69, 24 June 2014)?   2.     Can the applicants still claim to be “victims”, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, of a violation of their rights under Article 10 of the Convention (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §§ 178-80, ECHR 2006-V)? In particular, after the Supreme Administrative Court acknowledged that the refusal by the Office of the Government to provide the applicants with the information at issue had violated their right to receive and impart information, was it open for them to claim compensation or other appropriate redress (see, mutatis mutandis , Al Husin v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (no. 2) , no. 10112/16, §§ 89-90, 25 June 2019)?   3.     Without prejudice to the answer to the previous questions, did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their complaint under Article   10, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? In particular:   (a)     In the circumstances of the present case, did Article 13 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 10 require holding specific individuals liable for the refusal to provide the applicants with the information at issue (see, mutatis mutandis , Peev v.   Bulgaria , no. 64209/01, § 71, 26 July 2007)?   (b)     Did domestic law provide for any other remedies which could be considered “effective” in the circumstances?