LITHUANIA

Expert assessments: Sanctions

The reference to Lithuanian example is not entirely accurate: the authority with the above-mentioned powers is the Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission (LRTK), not the Council of Lithuanian Radio and Television. The LRTK oversees broadcast and audiovisual media;172 the Inspector of Journalist Ethics and Journalists, and the Publishers Ethics Commission, as well as the Lithuanian Ministry of Culture, are responsible for print and online press. The LRTK can impose sanctions on broadcasters for breaches to technical and content-related regulations in the Law on the Protection of Minors, the Media Law, as well as for violations to licensing conditions, or to the LRTK’s own regulatory decisions.173 However the LRTK’s decision to suspend or revoke a broadcast license has to be sanctioned by a court.174 Neither the LRTK nor the Inspector can “bring prosecutions against” broadcasters or media outlets, as the above statement claims.

The Media Law clearly establishes a set of content regulations for which broadcasters and audiovisual media service providers can be sanctioned. These provisions include: “protection of personal rights, honour and dignity;” right of reply; protection of minors, and “information not to be published.”175 The Inspector of Journalist Ethics is a state official who oversees the implementation of Media Law.176 The Inspector may impose the following sanctions: issue a warning to producers and disseminators of public information about legal violations; request a retraction or allow a right of response in cases of “false information degrading the honour and dignity of a person or damaging his professional reputation or legitimate interests;” refer cases involving violations of the Media Law “to competent state institutions and the Ethics Commission of Journalists and Publishers;” “draw up reports of administrative offences in the cases set out in the Code of Administrative Offences;” or “consider cases of administrative offences and impose administrative penalties in the cases set out in the Code of Administrative Offences.”177

The regular Lithuanian administrative court system may suspend or even terminate providers of public information (except for broadcasters of radio and TV programs) if the information: a) “incites to change the constitutional order of the Republic of Lithuania through the use of force;” or b) “instigates attempts against the sovereignty of the Republic of Lithuania, its territorial integrity and political independence.”178

Article 52 of the Lithuanian Media Law stipulates that in such cases “the suspension term set by the court may not exceed one month with respect to newspaper editorial offices and three months with respect to magazine editorial offices.”179 The court may terminate activities of public information providers only if their activities were already suspended in the last 12 months.180

The Journalists and Publishers Ethics Commission is “a collegial self-regulatory body of producers and disseminators of public information,” indirectly supported by the state through the Media Support Foundation.181 Generally, the Journalists and Publishers Ethics Commission oversees the professional ethics of journalists. Under Article 46 Part 4 of the Media Law, the Journalists and Publishers Ethics Commission is supposed to: “1) ensure the cultivation of professional ethics of journalists; 2) examine violations of professional ethics committed in the course of provision of information to the public by journalists, producers of public information or responsible persons appointed by their participants; 3) examine disputes between journalists and producers or publishers of public information regarding violations of the Code of Ethics of Lithuanian Journalists and Publishers.”182

The LRTK has generally been cautious in using its sanctioning powers, which range from warnings to termination of broadcasting license. In 2007, for instance, the most often used sanction by the LRTK was a fine.183 In contrast, the most common sanction imposed on broadcasters in 2008 and 2009 was a warning.184 In 2010 the trend changed again and only five out of the 15 of the LRTK’s sanctions were warnings, while the rest were fines.185 One of the limits on sanctioning powers of LRTK is established under the Law of Public Administration, which requires institutions to exercise their oversight powers in a minimal and proportionate manner, in order to ensure as little interference with activities of private actors as possible.186

Decisions by the LRTK, the Inspector of Journalist Ethics, or the Journalists and Publishers Ethics Commission may be appealed to the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court or the Supreme Administrative Court.187 For example, in December 2009 the Court considered an appeal from a broadcaster concerning imposition of a fine by LRTK for the broadcaster’s failure to meet conditional-access system requirements as established under the license. The court found that LRTK properly evaluated evidence and reached a reasoned decision concerning the broadcaster’s failure to meet its license requirements. Consequently, the court upheld LRTK’s decision.188 In another case, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania considered an appeal by a broadcaster against LRTK’s decision to impose a fine for an alleged breach of requirements concerning labeling programs that could have harmful effects on minors. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania found that there was not enough evidence to prove broadcaster’s guilt and remitted the case for reconsideration to the court of first instance. 189

171 “Criticism 1,” in “Criticisms and answers formulated on the subject of the proposed media act examined in a European context,” Ministry of Public Administration and Justice, December 20, 2010, available at:http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-of-public-administration-and-justice/news/criticisms-and-answers-formulated-on-the-subject-of-the-proposed-media-act-examined-in-a-european-context 172 Article 47 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public, (hereafter the ‘Media Law’), Official Gazette, 27 July 2006, No. 82-3254, as last amended on 30 September 2010, amendments valid since 18, available in English at http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=392982. 173 As specified in Article 48(1)(13) of the Media Law, available in English at: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=392982; See also Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information, Official Gazette, 21 July 2009, No. 86-3637, available in English at: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=363137. 174 Media Law, Article 31(15), http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=392982. 175 Media Law, Article 19, http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=392982. 176 Media Law, Article 49(1), http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=392982. 177 Sanctions by the Inspector of Journalist Ethics are detailed in Article 50(3) in the Media Law, http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=392982. 178 Media Law, Article 52 and Article 19(1) and (2), http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=392982. 179 Media Law, Article 52(2), http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=392982. 180 Media Law, Article 52 (3), http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=392982. 181 Media Law, Article 46(1), http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=392982. 182 Media Law, Article 46(4), http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=392982 183 Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission, 2007 Annual Report, available in Lithuanian at: http://www.rtk.lt/lt/komisija/ataskaitos_seimui, p. 25-27. 184 Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission, 2008 Annual Report, p. 39-42; 2009 Annual Report, p. 9-12. Annual reports available in Lithuanian at: http://www.rtk.lt/lt/komisija/ataskaitos_seimui. 185 Lithuanian Radio and Television Commission, 2010 Annual Report, available in Lithuanian at: http://www.rtk.lt/lt/komisija/ataskaitos_seimui, p. 10-13. 186 According to Article 36 (1)(1) of the Lithuanian Law on Public Administration, Official Gazette, 14 July 2006, No. 77-2975, as last amended on 23 December 2010, amendments valid since 10 January 2011, available in Lithuanian at http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter2/dokpaieska.showdoc_l?p_id=390913. 187 Article 47(13) of the Media Law states: “The decisions of the Commission shall be binding on broadcasters and re-broadcasters of radio and/or television programmes and providers of on-demand audiovisual media services; persons may appeal to court against the abovementioned decisions within 30 days of the date of their entering into force,” and Article 50(18) states: “The decisions of the Inspector may be appealed against in court within 30 days of their publication or, where the decision is not made public, of receipt of the notification of adoption thereof.” Article 46(8) of the Media Law specifies appeals for Journalists and Publishers Ethics Commission. 188 Decision of Vilnius Regional Administrative Court, No. II-1693-662/2008, 1 December 2009. 189 Decision of Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, No. N-444-627/2008, 19 November 2008, http://bylos.lvat.lt/getdocument.aspx?id=d676a84b-3ac3-42c0-ab3b-cbaea0f76dea