2024-05-17 01:14:15
LAT annulled the choice of the Vilnius District Court docket, which had obliged the blogger S. Malinauskas to compensate A. Pukeli for non-pecuniary injury.
The blogger himself introduced this weak LAT determination on his Fb account.
“It’s uncommon that my arms tremble whereas writing. Forgive me if there are any errors or too many feelings.
After greater than three years of authorized battle, at the moment the Supreme Court docket of Lithuania (LAT) put an finish to my lead case.
The choice of the Vilnius District Court docket was annulled, the choice of the Vilnius District Court docket remained legitimate. Because of this I gained completely every part, from this second all episodes are reset, the leads need to pay me 15230 euros.
It additionally means a number of extra essential issues. LAT clearly took the aspect of freedom of speech, journalists, bloggers, commentators. This basic strategic declare ended up falling aside, costing the felony who filed it not solely some huge cash, but in addition the final word recognition of who he was. It will completely block any avenues to any official place or place for the lead.
Second, this determination made it clear that the perfect technique is to not worry, bend and adapt, however to combat evil and defend values. This determination units crucial precedents that may be adopted sooner or later.
Effectively, the third factor is essential for me personally. I proceed to stay undefeated. In different phrases, legitimate courtroom selections have acknowledged what I preserve saying “fact issues”. I adopted this precept and can proceed to observe it,” wrote S. Malinauskas.
A. Pukelis-Švinius sought in a civil lawsuit that S. Malinauskas deny the knowledge revealed about him, which, in accordance with the businessman, is humiliating to his honor and dignity.
He requested the courtroom to oblige S. Malinauskas to publish a video on a number of web platforms the place he hosts his content material with a refutation of the statements that A. Pukelis-Švinius sought to acknowledge as unfaithful.
A. Pukelis-Švinius additionally complained that using his picture for the commercial of S. Malinauskas’ movies violated his proper to picture, and the publication of his dwelling handle violated his proper to respect for his non-public life.
2024-05-17 01:14:15