[ad_1]
“The public’s right to know is not absolute,” Prime Minister Saulius Skvernelis said in Seimas in 2018, explaining the destruction of his government’s record.
I have been one of the participants in this case, which has always believed that the public’s right to know how the government, supported by its money, makes decisions is and should be absolute. As a result, my colleagues and I have been litigating for almost two years. During those two years, we have all seen the Government protect the secrecy of public information, and Prime Minister S.Svvernelis claims that everything here is perfectly legal.
Photo by Sigismund Gedvila / 15min / Saulius Skvernelis
But the Prime Minister was wrong. The Supreme Administrative Court stated in its ruling that the Constitution establishes that a person has the right to have their sentences and to express them freely; A person should not be prevented from seeking, receiving, and disseminating information and ideas.
The court found that the Government had not provided evidence as to why journalists were unable to receive information about the Government’s activities. The court ruling establishes that freedom of information is one of the foundations of a democratic state.
“The state <...> is constitutionally obliged not only not to hinder the free dissemination of information and ideas in society, to take all necessary measures to prevent other people from doing so, but also to take measures (positive activities) (through its institutions) to informing the public about the most important processes in society and the state, so that citizens (and other residents) receive the most accurate information possible about the things they need to know, “he cited the ruling of the Constitutional Court in his ruling.
The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights says that laws cannot allow arbitrary restrictions, which can become a form of indirect censorship, creating barriers for public authorities to collect information.
“It should be noted that the right of applicants to receive, collect and disseminate information has been violated. As a result, the accused [Vyriausybės kanceliarijos] exemptions [pateikti pasitarimo garso įrašą] will be considered unfounded and illegal, “is written in the final and final appeal.
Photo by Julius Kalinskas / 15min / Government of the Republic of Lithuania
What has the Government itself responded to this? Government officials wrote a press release with the following headline: “The court found that the government had not violated the procedure for recording the meeting hearings.” The Government announced that the court decision had established that the Government Registry had legally acted to maintain the records of the meetings and had not violated applicable law.
The court ruling does not contain such words or the sentences so proudly written by the Government. Paradoxically, any state institution preparing to fight fake news and propaganda itself broadcasts that news from its official website.
Dear Government, I can offer you some more titles that describe the sentence with the same precision as yours: “The Court determined that the Government had not violated the norms of intergalactic law.” Government actions did not affect the trajectory of Saturn’s rings. “
The spatial area appears to be the most appropriate to describe the Government’s response. What is sadder is that this defeat of the Government and the violation of the right of the whole society to know will be paid by none other than the same society in taxpayer money.
The court ruled that the destroyed record of the government meeting could no longer be restored because too much time had elapsed. However, after this court’s decision, it became quite clear that there is a Government and a Prime Minister in Lithuania who were elected to serve the citizens, but violated the fundamental principles of our democracy and the rights of the citizens themselves. What to do next? Apparently everyone could wonder.
[ad_2]
