[ad_1]
In court, E. Šatas challenged the SSD’s statement that in 2008, when MG Baltic acquired Lithuania’s largest alcohol producer, Alita, he was the “own person” of concern in the Competition Council.
Furthermore, E. Šatas claimed that the Seimas Defense and National Security Committee (NSGC) had unlawfully disclosed the SSD statement, which violated his honor and dignity.
The president of the Competition Council also requested 4 thousand. moral damage.
In its ruling, the court held that the data contained in the SSD certificate had been leaked to the media without a legal basis, even before NSGK’s decision to release it.
“Since NSGK was responsible for the proper storage and use of the information obtained during the parliamentary investigation, the breach of this duty should also address the question of state responsibility for the dissemination of information on disputes if this information may violate rights and interests plaintiff’s legitimate claims, “the court said.
The court also noted that the law did not impose an obligation on NSGK to disclose the material collected during the investigation, so when the SSD provided details of E. Shat in its certificate and the committee decided to make public not only its finding but also this Department of the security statement, assumed responsibility for that information.
The SCL supported the conclusion of the lower court, the Vilnius city district court, that the data contained in the SSD certificate is not presented as an opinion, but rather as an objective fact and a message that actually exists.
It is true that, according to the court, this message was later denied by the Special Investigation Service.
‘The panel of judges stated that the defendant, after having disseminated information about the plaintiff and raised doubts, in particular with the Heads of State, regarding his eligibility for the post, was subsequently confirmed (in this case by order of the Prime Minister to the Special Investigation Service) who was in a position to continue, so the message spread does not correspond to reality, ”emphasized the Supreme Court.
According to the court, it has not been established in the case that the statements of the SSD had serious consequences for E. Šat or harmed his professional career, thus acknowledging that they do not correspond to reality and violate honor and dignity it is a sufficient compensation. for their moral damage.
The SCL also emphasized that the public must have access to correct and truthful information.
“The provision of information in the opposite direction is not contrary to the public interest, since it simply misleads the public, for example, as in this case, by distrusting the State, its institutions and those who act to protect and protect the public. society as a whole and its members “.
E. Šatas applied to the court for the protection of honor and dignity in September 2018, the Vilnius District Court had satisfied his claim and recognized that the statements of the SSD violated the honor and dignity of the Vice President of the Competition Council.
In April last year, this decision was overturned by the Panevėžys Regional Court, which declared that SSD’s statements should be considered as an opinion that cannot be verified.
According to the VSD 2018 certificate, in order for MG Baltic to acquire a part of Alita’s shares, E. Šatas became the company’s “own person” in the Competition Council and sought a favorable solution for the business group.
E. Šatas has been a member of the Board since August 2011 and, in May 2012, Šarūnas Keserauskas was appointed Vice Chairman. Both times he was appointed to the council by President Dalia Grybauskaitė, the first by introducing then-Prime Minister Andrius Kubilis, the second by Saulius Skvernelis.
The decision of the Supreme Court is final and unappealable.
[ad_2]
