2024-04-19 19:28:34
The Klaipėda district court decided in December of last year that the 2022 election of MP R. Žemaitaitis the information published on the social network Facebook about the public figure A. Tapina, the public institution “Laisvės TV” (about the fund-raising campaigns organized by “Laisvės TV” in support of Ukraine) does not correspond to reality, humiliates honor and dignity. The court ordered the politician to delete the mentioned records, awarded A. Tapin 2 thousand. EUR, and “Laisvės TV” – 1 thousand. EUR non-pecuniary damages. 7.2 thousand was also awarded from R. Žemaitaitis. EUR litigation costs.
This decision was appealed by both parties to the Klaipėda District Court. R. Žemaitaitis asked the court to annul the decision of the court of first instance against him and to reject the claim of A. Tapinas and “Laisvės TV”. A. Tapinas, for his part, asks the appellate court to award a larger amount for non-pecuniary damages – 10,000 each for himself and the public institution “Laisvės TV”. euros.
The Klaipėda District Court rejected the appeals of both parties. The court, rejecting the complaint of R. Žemaitaitis, concluded that the message spread by the parliamentarian did not correspond to reality, humiliated the honor and dignity of the plaintiff A. Tapinas and belittled the professional reputation of the public institution “Laisvės TV”. The court awarded A. Tapin and “Laisvės TV” 4.5 thousand each from R. Žemaitaitis. EUR of litigation costs incurred in the court of first instance.
This decision of the Klaipėda District Court enters into force on the day of its publication, but can be appealed to the Supreme Court of Lithuania within 3 months.
As stated in the press release of the Klaipėda District Court, in the assessment of the panel of judges, the mere fact that R. Žemaitaitis published the statements of the dispute on his personal account of the social network Facebook does not constitute grounds for qualifying the statements of the dispute as an opinion by itself.
“The panel of judges noted that “although the defendant (R. Žemaitaitis – ELTA) took part in a really important public discussion about the activities of the plaintiffs (A. Tapino and “Laisvės TV” – ELTA) in collecting support for Ukraine, his right cannot be denied , the discussion did not take place live and the defendant had the opportunity to reflect on possible forms of expression. On the contrary, the defendant chose a rather drastic form of expression and several times disseminated information that clearly has an extremely negative meaning in society (both in terms of law and morality),” the court’s press release states.
In the court’s opinion, R. Žemaitaitis’s statements exceeded the limits of criticism allowed in a democratic society – the language used by the defendant was clearly excessive, with signs of humiliation (statements with an obviously negative connotation should be repeated emphatically, with highlighted capital letters, etc.), and such serious statements , as already mentioned, lacked a sufficient factual basis.
“The statements in the records of the defendant (R. Žemaitaitis – ELTA) are basically formulated categorically, not as a doubt, a question, the terms “wasted”, “lost”, “stolen”, “scam”, “supports Hitler”, “horrible” are used actions against the Jews’ has the meaning of an illegal action. Such statements should not be considered an expression of opinion, as the existence of these statements can be verified. In addition, the facts presented by the defendant allow any reasonable person of average intelligence to conclude that the money collected for the support was wasted, after the plaintiff A. Tapinas lost it while playing poker,” the court asserts.
ELTA reminds that the public figure A. Tapinas and the public institution “Laisvės TV” he founded filed a lawsuit with the court regarding the information published by the MP R. Žemaitaitis about the support actions for Ukraine organized by the institution he founded (statements about collecting money for the combat drone “Bayraktar” for purchase, A. Tapino allegedly lost money, etc.).
R. Žemaitaitis himself explained in court that when he mentioned “Andriukas” in his comments about the possibly “swindled thousands”, he did not mean A. Tapinas. The defenders of the parliamentarian emphasized that the politician, raising questions about the transparency of aid to Ukraine, was simply seeking to implement the common good, that is, to exercise control over the use of aid.
2024-04-19 19:28:34