CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 25 novembre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   834 25.11.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   Insufficient redress in Lithuanian breach of privacy judgments   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing two Chamber judgments [1] – available only in English – in the cases of Armonas v. Lithuania (application no.   36919/02) and Biriuk v. Lithuania (no. 23373/03).   The Court held by six votes to one, in both cases, that there had been a violation of Article   8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the low ceiling imposed on damages awarded to them on account of a serious breach of their privacy by a national newspaper.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded each applicant 6,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are two Lithuanian nationals: Judita Armonienė, who lives in the village of Ąžuolpamušio (Lithuania) and lodged the application with the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of her husband, Laimutis Armonas, born in 1963 and now deceased; and, Gitana Biriuk who was born in 1970 and lives in the village of Kraštų (Lithuania).   The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that they were awarded derisory damages despite decisions in their favour with regard to serious breaches of their privacy.   In January 2001 Lietuvos Rytas , Lithuania’s biggest daily newspaper, published an article on its front page concerning an AIDS threat in a remote part of Lithuania. In particular, medical staff from the AIDS centre and Pasvalys hospital were cited as having confirmed that Mr   Armonas and Ms Biriuk were HIV positive. Ms Biriuk, described as “notoriously promiscuous”, was also said to have had two illegitimate children with Mr   Armonas.   Subsequently Mr Armonas and Ms Biriuk sued, separately, the newspaper for a breach of their right to privacy. In July 2001 and April 2002 the courts ruled in their favour, finding that the article was humiliating and that the newspaper had published information about Mr   Armonas’ and Ms Biriuk’s private life without their consent which did not correspond to any legitimate public interest.   In Mr Armonas’ case, the courts concluded that he had not proven that the newspaper had made the information about him public intentionally and therefore, under Article 54 § 1 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public, awarded the maximum sum allowed in such circumstances, 10,000   Lithuanian   litai (LTL) (approximately EUR   2,896). In Ms   Biriuk’s case, the courts first held that the article, published with the aim of creating a sensation and increasing sales, had deliberately sought to humiliate her and, under the same law, tripled the statutory sum to LTL   30,000 (approximately EUR   8,676). That amount was, however, subsequently reduced on appeal to LTL   10,000 as, again, it had not been established that the information had been published intentionally.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The applications Armonas v. Lithuania and Biriuk v. Lithuania were lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 2   October 2002 and 11   June 2003 respectively.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (Serbian), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgian), Işıl Karakaş (Turkish), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicants complained that, even though the domestic courts had held that their right to privacy had been seriously violated, they had been awarded derisory damages. In particular, they alleged that the low ceiling on non-pecuniary damages under Lithuanian law at the time, in effect, protected the media from lawsuits concerning breach of privacy.   Decision of the Court   Article 8   In both cases, the Court saw no reason to depart from the national courts’ conclusions which had acknowledged that there had been an interference with the applicants’ right to privacy. In particular, the fact that Ms Biriuk and Mr Armonas had lived in a village had increased the possibility that neighbours and immediate family would be aware of their illness, causing public humiliation and exclusion from village social life. Similarly, the Court agreed with the domestic courts’ view that the article had not contributed to any debate of general interest to society.   Furthermore, the Court was particularly concerned about the fact that, according to the newspaper, the information about Ms Biriuk’s and Mr Armonas’ illness had been confirmed by medical staff. It was crucial that domestic law safeguarded patient confidentiality and discouraged any disclosures on personal data, especially bearing in mind the negative impact of such disclosures on the willingness of others to take voluntary tests for HIV and seek appropriate treatment.   The Court concluded that, in such cases of an outrageous abuse of press freedom, the severe legislative limitations on judicial discretion in redressing the damage suffered by the victim and therefore on deterring the recurrence of such abuses, had failed to provide the applicants with the protection of privacy they could have legitimately expected. Indeed, that view has since been endorsed as the ceiling on judicial awards of compensation contained in Article   54   § 1 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public was repealed in July 2001 by the new Civil Code.   Accordingly, the Court held that, in both cases, there had been a violation of Article 8.     Judges Popović and Tsotsoria expressed a partly dissenting opinion and judge Zagrebelsky expressed a dissenting opinion, which are annexed to the judgments.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.