Former Prime Minister and his team stand trial: threatened with fines for obstructing journalists

The scandalous story began after a government meeting in October 2018. The opening of the Registry Center data to journalists was discussed. Rumors spread that during the meeting, then-Prime Minister S. Skvernel spoke colorfully about freedom of expression and opposed the opening of data. The media began to request an audio recording of the meeting to find out what was actually said during it, but the Government Chancellery refused to provide it and finally reported that it was automatically destroyed.

Following the uproar, a group of journalists went to court demanding this registration. Last July, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania declared that the right to receive information had been violated in this situation, but there was no possibility of restoring the record.

There is a pity

Following this decision, two journalists, Vilma Danauskienė and Rita Miliūtė, did not give up and continue to seek justice. They now seek to identify and punish the perpetrators for refusing to provide an audio recording in violation of the law.

They petitioned the court for an administrative offense under article 547. This establishes responsibility for refusing to provide information to members of the media or obstructing journalists in the performance of their professional duties. There is a fine of 20 to 140 euros for this.

Initially, two courts refused to hear such a case, but eventually the Supreme Court ordered it to do so and a first hearing was held on Wednesday.

R. Miliūtė and V. Danauskienė, who presented the petition, were recognized as victims in the case. They also identified the persons possibly responsible for the rape, namely S. Skvernelis, A. Stončaitis and T. Beržinskas, who joined the meeting remotely.

The hearing began with the request of the lawyer for former Prime Minister Dominykas Vanhara to terminate the process without even entering into the circumstances, because according to the law, if more than two years have elapsed since the alleged administrative offense, a fine can no longer be impose. The entry in dispute was destroyed on October 5, 2018. Algimantas Šindeikis, lawyer representing the victims, objected to this, considering that the requested information could be provided even after the destruction of the record, therefore it is considered that the violation it is continuous.

“The term of the violation must be calculated from the end of the period of government. In addition, the court can decide on the question of the statute of limitations in its final decision. We must find out who was the person who committed the crime,” said the lawyer .

Judge Rolandas Bužinskas, who agreed with A. Šindeikis’ point of view, decided to continue the process.

The Prime Minister has no time for such matters.

The three defendants categorically disagreed with the crime when giving their explanations to the court.

“I have not seen any data that needs to be processed,” Skvernell said.

According to the former prime minister, no one asked him to present the file. And even if the head of government had come to such an issue, it is not within his competence to decide on it.

He explained that decisions on similar issues are made by the staff of the Government Chancellery, and that he himself does not intervene in any way and does not even think about it, since that is not his competence.

“If you ask those questions, the prime minister would not have the opportunity to work in other jobs. Whoever touched my personality when they asked my personal opinion, yes, then I spoke,” S. Skvernelis said in court.

When the judge asked if anyone had asked the Prime Minister for his personal opinion in the event of a record scandal, Skvernel replied: “My opinion is the same on all matters, everything has been done in accordance with the laws and procedures in force. . The Prime Minister cannot give instructions to do so one way or another. The Prime Minister does not have the opportunity to answer all the questions. “

He explained how problems travel in government.

A. Stončaitis, the former head of the Government Chancellery, has nothing to do with the deleted record. He says he found out about the situation only when the issue was heard in the media.

“I just realized that someone had approached me about it. It was definitely not applied until the post was automatically removed. Then we corresponded, we gave answers to politicians, and others were inquiries,” he said.

A. Stončaitis explained that the movement of similar inquiries in the office is clearly regulated, it enters the document management department and then goes to the responsible department.

“Provide information, if it does not concern me personally as Chancellor, with me, as a rule, 99 percent. nobody really coordinated. That was the competence of the unit, “he explained.

According to him, in the present case the request for information was treated as a routine matter, many of which are received on a daily basis, so he went to the public relations department.

“Once that story has gained momentum and has become history, it can be viewed the same way. But at that time, if there were inquiries from journalists, it was treated like an ordinary inquiry. If it was something so special, maybe there would be another flow. But in this case it really wasn’t, “explained A. Stončaitis.

When asked what was considered a special report, he gave as an example the information received about the planned visit from the Polish Chancellor.

“There is no such request to send to any department, in which case I would come and say the Chancellor is coming. And everything else every day. It’s a routine,” he said.

An advisor’s mistake at the epicenter of the scandal

T. Beržinskas, who was at the epicenter of this scandal, also had to explain. V. Danauskienė then sent him a registration request directly and received a response from the advisor: “Coordinated action. We ask everyone without exception, we will not give. “

“This is one of my mistakes or, so to speak, a failed joke,” said T. Beržinskas about this response in court. – As it seemed to me at the time that the relationship with this journalist was quite close, the communication was also carried out by email, and in the messengerAfter work, and in the afternoons and in private matters, I treated the journalist as an acquaintance, so my answer was a failed joke. He did not expect it to be photographed, posted on Facebook, he explained and then added. – It wasn’t my decision, it was my failed prank. I have not made any decisions about the shipment, non-shipment or destruction of the sound recording. “

The counselor then publicly apologized throughout the day for the joke, but argued that it didn’t really mean that he had contributed in any way to the decision not to record.

“In accordance with the procedure established in the Chancellery, I answered those questions that were specifically related to the activities of the Prime Minister. These were applications for the Prime Minister’s post, requests for comments, requests for interviews. I agreed with the Prime Minister, “explained the former Prime Minister’s adviser.

However, in the instant case, according to him, the matter does not concern his area of ​​interest in any way, for which reason it was referred to the Public Relations Department and he was not interested in the subsequent course of events.

“These are people whose experience I trust, I didn’t need to be interested. I have seen a stir, but I don’t think I have specifically addressed the Prime Minister or the Chancellor on this issue. It has not been very simple, you cannot go to the Prime Minister at any time because his schedule is quite busy, unless it is a completely hot case that concerns him directly. And I treated that topic as an office activity, so I didn’t see the need to rush to it and discuss it, “he said.

It is true that the prime minister’s adviser mentioned that he may have expressed an opinion on whether it was worth giving the requested information to journalists.

“It is possible that I once expressed in some format that the record could or should be delivered because there was nothing secret or undisclosed in that record, but the situation turned out as it turned out,” he explained, assuring him that not even knowing that the record was automatic will be destroyed.

The process is prolonged

After hearing these explanations, A. Šindeikis, a lawyer, requested that the then Head of the Public Relations and Document Management Division of the Government Chancellery be invited to testify at the court hearing.

The former prime minister was outraged by this request: “If applicants accuse people without evidence, with nothing, we take it until January.”

However, the judge agreed with the request to further clarify who was responsible for the right to information of the raped journalists.

It is true that the process will be really long, because due to the summer vacation planned by the politicians, the next meeting will take place only in August.