CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 novembre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 113 November 2008 Armonienė v. Lithuania - 36919/02 Judgment 25.11.2008 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Insufficient redress in breach of privacy cases: violations   [This summary also covers the Judgment of the case Biriuk v. Lithuania , no. 23373/03, 25 November 2008] Facts : In 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 local 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 or legitimate public interest. In both cases, however, the courts found that it had not been established that the information had been published intentionally. They therefore applied a statutory provision – Article 54   §   1 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public, which has since been repealed – which restricted the maximum award possible in the absence of such an intention to LTL 10,000 (approximately EUR   2,900). Law : 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 protected the media from lawsuits concerning breaches of privacy. In both cases, the Court saw no reason to depart from the national courts' conclusions that there had been an interference with the applicants' right to privacy. In particular, the fact that Ms Biriuk and Mr Armonas 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. It 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 of 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. 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 failed to provide the applicants with the protection of privacy they could have legitimately expected. Indeed, that view had since been endorsed as the ceiling on judicial awards of compensation had been repealed in July 2001 by the new Civil Code. Conclusion : violations (six votes to one). Article 41 – EUR 6,500 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes