CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 novembre 2005

.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. 80 November 2005 Balsytė-Lideikienė v. Lithuania (dec.) - 72596/01 Decision 24.11.2005 [Section III] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Administrative-law sanctions imposed for promoting ethnic hostility by describing territories of neighbouring States as “ethnic Lithuanian lands under temporary occupation”: admissible   The applicant is the founder and owner of a publishing company which publishes a yearly “Lithuanian calendar” describing various historic dates from the applicant’s and other authors’ perspective. In January 2000 a parliamentary committee requested the Prosecutor General to investigate whether the 2000 edition was compatible with the Lithuanian Constitution and other legal acts. Two experts noted; among other things, that according to a map in the calendar certain territories of Belarus, Poland and Russia were “ethnic Lithuanian lands under temporary occupation”. The experts concluded that the edition contained anti-Semitic and anti-Polish assertions, and declarations of the superiority of Lithuanians vis-à-vis other ethnic groups. The authorities subsequently seized a number of copies in various bookstores and the distribution of the edition was stopped. In June 2000 a district court found that the applicant had published 3,000 copies of the edition, 588 of which had been sold. Relying mostly on the expert conclusions, the court held that the applicant had intended to distribute material promoting ethnic hostility. The Court imposed an administrative penalty in the amount of 1,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL) and ordered confiscation of all seized copies. The court heard the case in the absence of the applicant or a lawyer for the defence. The applicant appealed, claiming a violation of Article 10 of the Convention and complaining that her trial had taken place in absentia . A regional court quashed the first instance judgment on the ground that she had been hospitalised at the time of the hearing and thus could have not taken part in the first-instance hearing. The case was remitted for a fresh examination. Referring to fresh expertise obtained, the district court found that the applicant’s actions in producing and distributing the 2000 edition had promoted ethnic hostility. The edition had caused negative reactions from official representatives of Poland, Belarus and Russia, who had complained about the map denoting some of their territories as “ethnic Lithuanian lands under temporary occupation”. The district court concluded that the applicant’s actions had not been deliberate but reckless. An administrative warning was imposed and some 1,000 copies of the edition and the means to produce it were confiscated. The case was examined in the presence of the applicant and a representative of the security intelligence authorities. The applicant left the hearing in the course thereof. The applicant appealed further, claiming in particular that Article 10 of the Convention had been violated. She also complained that the court had not called the experts to give oral testimony, thereby breaching her defence rights. The Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal as unsubstantiated without hearing the parties. It found it established that no procedural breaches had occurred before the district court as the applicant had been able to state her case but had left the hearing voluntarily before it had ended. Neither had the first-instance court been required by the relevant procedural provisions to hear the experts orally. Admissible under Articles 10 and 6 (allegedly unfair proceedings and lack of oral hearing on appeal). Inadmissible under Articles 9 and 14 of the Convention.   © 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