<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>In Lithuania rules for the anonymization of court decisions were introduced in 2005. These rules require automatic anonymization of all court decisions, which in the opinion of the authors violates the public interest to know and freedom of expression is unjustifiably restricted on behalf of the right to privacy. This issue covers two diametrically opposed human rights: the right to privacy and the right to information. The first question is how the balance between two equivalent rights could be reached. The second question is whether this regulation is in accordance with the law as it is established in the national Constitution and revealed by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania and developed by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The authors conclude that the legislator is not empowered to delegate to the Judicial Council issues which are a matter of legal regulation and suggest possible solutions evaluating practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights, and selected EU countries.</p></abstract>

In Lithuania rules for the anonymization of court decisions were introduced in 2005. These rules require automatic anonymization of all court decisions, which in the opinion of the authors violates the public interest to know and freedom of expression is unjustifiably restricted on behalf of the right to privacy. This issue covers two diametrically opposed human rights: the right to privacy and the right to information. The first question is how the balance between two equivalent rights could be reached. The second question is whether this regulation is in accordance with the law as it is established in the national Constitution and revealed by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania and developed by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The authors conclude that the legislator is not empowered to delegate to the Judicial Council issues which are a matter of legal regulation and suggest possible solutions evaluating practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights, and selected EU countries.

Anonymization of Court Decisions: Are Restrictions on the Right to Information in “Accordance with the Law”?

Baltic Journal of Law & Politics

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

In Lithuania rules for the anonymization of court decisions were introduced in 2005. These rules require automatic anonymization of all court decisions, which...

Anonymization of Court Decisions: Are Restrictions on the Right to Information in “Accordance with the Law”?

Online veröffentlicht: 04. März 2017

Seitenbereich: 150 - 170

Eingereicht: 21. Nov. 2016

Akzeptiert: 22. Dez. 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bjlp-2016-0016

Schlüsselwörter
Lithuania, anonymization, Judicial Council, separation of powers, European Court of Human Rights

© 2016 Edita Gruodytė et al., published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Anonymization of Court Decisions: Are Restrictions on the Right to Information in “Accordance with the Law”?

Online veröffentlicht: 04. März 2017

Seitenbereich: 150 - 170

Eingereicht: 21. Nov. 2016

Akzeptiert: 22. Dez. 2016

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/bjlp-2016-0016

SchlüsselwörterLithuania, anonymization, Judicial Council, separation of powers, European Court of Human Rights

© 2016 Edita Gruodytė et al., published by De Gruyter Open

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Schlüsselwörter
Lithuania, anonymization, Judicial Council, separation of powers, European Court of Human Rights