Ar Lietuvoje taikomas teismų procesinių sprendimų nuasmeninimas nepažeidžia visuomenės informavimo principo?

LTRemiantis teisėjų tarybos nutarimu, Lietuvoje nuo 2006 metų lapkričio 24 dienos teismų procesiniai dokumentai (sprendimai, nuosprendžiai, nutarimai ir nutartys) juos skelbiant internete, turi būti nuasmeninti. Įsigaliojus šiai tvarkai iš esmės susiduria du vienas kitam prieštaraujantys interesai: visuomenės teisė laisvai gauti ir skleisti informaciją bei asmens teisė į privatumą. Šiame straipsnyje, įvertinus tarptautinius ir supranacionalinius dokumentus, kitų valstybių ir tarptautinių teismų (ESTT ir EŽTT) procesinių dokumentų skelbimo internete praktiką, bus įvertinta Lietuvoje egzistuojanti praktika ir jos atitiktis visuomenės informavimo principui. Straipsnyje apsiribojama teismo procesinių dokumentų baudžiamosiose bylose nuasmeninimo tikslingumo analize. [Iš leidinio]

ENAccording to the Resolution of the Judicial Council the published judicial decisions in Lithuania should be anonymised. This requirement creates the conflict of two interests: public's right freely receive and disseminate information and the individual's right to privacy. The aim of the article is to analyse existing regulation on publishing judicial decisions (in criminal cases) in Lithuania and to evaluate its compliance with the freedom to receive information. The article reviews the international and supranational legal documents, decisions of the Court of Justice of European Union and the European Court of Human Rights and scientific literature. The analysis leads to the conclusions that the interest of privacy dominates over the freedom of expression when the judicial decisions are published. Freedom of expression and the right to privacy are two equivalent rights, however they are not unconditional and international and national legal documents set conditions, when they can be restricted. These rights can be restricted only by law. The restriction should be interpreted narrowly according to the principle of proportionality and should be essential for the democratic society. The authors come to the conclusion that the automatic anonymization of all judicial decisions violates the public interest to know and freedom of expression is unjustifiably restricted. The authors recommend changing the order of the publication of judicial decisions. First, decisions against public person should not be anonymised, because the right to know about public persons is widely recognized. Secondly, it is also proposed to consider the possibility not to anonymise judicial documents, when serious or very serious crimes and/or violent crimes are committed, because in these cases the public interest to know the person, who committed a crime, outweighs the individual's right to privacy.Anonymization of judicial decisions is evident restriction of freedom of expression, therefore in opinion of the authors it is very questionable if the legislator is empowered to delegate his powers to such self-regulation body as the judicial Council especially that in Lithuania it is formed from professionals (judges) and if regulations enacted by the Judicial Council are legitimate. [From the publication]