Whether privacy restrictions are without prejudice to the rights of a public person?

Magistro baigiamajame darbe analizuojama, ar privataus gyvenimo neliečiamumo apribojimai nepažeidžia viešo asmens teisių? Mokslinių šaltinių analizė parodė, kad ,,asmens teisė į privatų gyvenimą“ vienos definicijos neturi. Ir dar yra ypatinga tuo, jog įgyvendinama ne paties subjekto veiksmais, o kitiems asmenims susilaikant nuo šią teisę pažeidžiančio elgesio. Lietuvos Respublikos įstatymuose, Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo Senato 1998 m. gegužės 15 d. nutarime įtvirtinta, kad ,,viešųjų asmenų privataus gyvenimo ribos saugomos skirtingai“, kadangi ,,teisėtas visuomenės interesas žinoti apie viešojo asmens privatų gyvenimą priklauso nuo šio asmens įtakos visuomenei ir kiekvieno viešojo asmens atžvilgiu yra skirtingas. Visuomenė turi teisę daugiau žinoti apie asmenis, kuriems pavesta spręsti visuomenei ar jos daliai svarbius klausimus”. Lietuvos Respublikos teisinės bazės analizė bei darbe suformuluotos išvados leidžia teigti, kad analizuojamos srities teisinis reglamentavimas turėtų būti detalesnis, labiau diferencijuotas, nes šiuo metu galiojantys įstatymai aiškiai net nenurodo, kokie asmenys laikytini ,,dalyvaujančiais visuomeninėje bei politinėje veikloje“, kokio intensyvumo minėtasis dalyvavimas turėtų būti ir kuo jis turėtų pasireikšti, kad asmuo būtų laikomas viešuoju asmeniu. O darbo autoriaus atlikta Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo praktikos analizė, suteikia galimybę dar aiškiau matyti, kad vertinant, koks asmuo turi būti laikomas viešuoju asmeniu, net ir minėtojo teismo praktika yra gana prieštaringa (neaišku, ar buvę politikai turi būti ginami kaip privatūs, ar kaip viešieji asmenys, ar verslininkai yra viešieji asmenys), neturinti vienodų kriterijų. Kitos Lietuvos Respublikoje viešojo asmens teisės į privatų gyvenimą užtikrinimo srityje egzistuojančios problemos yra tokios: nevienoda teismų praktika, viešųjų asmenų teisės į privatų gyvenimą pažeidimai, susiję su žiniasklaidos priemonių veiksmais, viešojo asmens teisės į privatų gyvenimą užtikrinimo elektroninėje erdvėje galimybių stoka, įstatymo normų neatitikimas nurodytoje srityje, taip pat Lietuvoje vykstančio teismo proceso trukmė bei neturtinės žalos už teisės į privatų gyvenimą pažeidimus atlyginimo dydis. Todėl siekiant kokybiškiau užtikrinti viešųjų asmenų teisę į privatų gyvenimą, tikslinga suvienodinti teismų praktiką, stiprinti Žurnalistų etikos inspektoriaus įgaliojimus, parengti išsamų dokumentą, suteikiantį galimybes asmenims aiškiai suvokti savo teises bei pareigas skelbiant komentarus elektroninėje erdvėje, svarstyti didesnės neturtinės žalos tokio pobūdžio bylose priteisimo klausimus. Taip pat būtinas aiškesnis, detalesnis, labiau diferencijuotas teisinis reglamentavimas.The final Master's thesis examines whether privacy restrictions are without prejudice to the rights of a public person. The relevance of the topic of the Master's thesis is based on the circumstances of the daily life, with accelerating technical progress, development of information technologies, globalization and other processes that make information accessible to an ever-increasing range of different people. It should be emphasized, however, that the development of technology and communications, increasing dissemination of information under the circumstances not only affect sectors of people's social life, but also raise a number of legal challenges in the fields of ensuring the right of individuals to the privacy of life. One of the challenges of this kind are the cases concerning the so-called public figures, privacy protection of such persons and the intersection of the “legitimate public interest to know”. Taking into consideration that, on the one hand, the person's right to privacy is not absolute (especially in the case of public figures), and on the other hand – this is one of the constitutional human rights the implementation and protection of which is guaranteed by the Lithuanian Constitution, the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and other laws and legislation, it is appropriate to perform the detailed analysis of the analysed field to identify potential problems in this area, and their solution capabilities. Also, in support of the relevance, it should be noted that person's rights are one of the main values of modern civilization, playing an important role in the legal system, and today not only becoming the matter important for a specific state, but also the object of international law. The above-mentioned circumstances imply the conclusion that the identification of problem aspects and analysis of aforementioned the rights of individuals to privacy, and the search of solution opportunities is timely and highly relevant. The aim of the researchers to analyse the problem aspects of the right of public figures to privacy. In order to implement the specified purpose of the work, the following objectives of the Master's thesis are presupposed: analysis of theoretical aspects of the right to private life and its restrictions; clarification of regulation of the rights of public figures to privacy; identification of problems in ensuring the rights of public figures to privacy; identification of solutions to problems of ensuring the rights of public figures to privacy. The analysis of scientific literature, case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania and other sources showed that in the case of the Republic of Lithuania, the analysed field of faces problems such as lack of specific nature of the provisions of law, lack of clarity and definition of the concept of a “public figure”, not implemented mechanisms for defending the rights of persons, and quite controversial case law, etc. The analysis of scientific sources showed that the “person's right to privacy” does not have a single definition. Both the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, and international laws and legal doctrine link the said right with the protection of a person against “obligation of disturbing information and facts about a person, his immediate environment” and is special in that it is implemented not bad the acts of the subject but by other persons, preventing the behaviour infringing this right. The right to privacy under the law can be limited only to cases where such a restriction, and it’s applicability are established in the laws, its scope is proportionate to the aim pursued and is necessary in a democratic society. In the absence of at least one of the above features, restriction of the right to privacy well violate a person's right to privacy. Analysis of the legal framework of the Republic of Lithuania also suggests that the legal regulation of the analysed field should be more detailed, more differentiated, because the current framework does not clearly specify which individuals should be considered as “involved in public and political activities”, what should be the intensity of the aforementioned participation, and how it should be manifested, etc., that he person would be considered to be a public figure, etc. The analysis of the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania shows that in analysing what person should be considered a public figure, and the aforementioned case law is quite controversial (it is unclear whether former politicians should be protected as private or as public persons, whether entrepreneurs are public figures, etc.). In the Republic of Lithuania, the major problems of assurance of the public figure’s right to privacy are as follows: different case law, violations of the rights of public figures to privacy related to the actions of media, lack of opportunities of ensuring the rights of public figures to privacy in the electronic domain, mismatch of the law in the specified field, duration of the court proceedings in Lithuania and the amount of damage compensations for violations of the rights to privacy. Assessment of the above information allows to make a conclusion that the hypothesis formulated in the beginning of the Master's thesis was confirmed. Therefore, in order to provide better quality in ensuring the right of public figures to privacy, it is appropriate to standardize the case law of the Republic of Lithuania, to enhance the capacity as of the journalist ethics inspector, to prepare a comprehensive document, enabling people to clearly understand their rights and responsibilities when posting comments in cyberspace, to consider the issues of awarding higher amounts for moral damage in this kind of cases. It is also necessary to have clearer, more detailed, more differentiated legal regulation. For the aim of improvement of the current situation of assurance of the right of public figures to privacy in Lithuania, primarily, it is appropriate to define more clearly what persons are considered public figures, to specify in detail the legal provisions related with persons involved in public and political activities – i.e. define the intensity of such activities, its methods etc., so that the person is considered a public figure. For this purpose, it is appropriate to build a uniform case law in the field of assuring the rights of public figures to privacy, and implement other mechanisms for protection of the rights of public figures to privacy. In the Republic of Lithuania, to increase the efficiency of ensuring the rights of public figures to privacy, it is more appropriate to organise a discussion among the professionals in the field of law and human rights protection on the appropriateness of additional protection of privacy of public figures in the cases where such persons are taking advantage of their publicity, because they are publicised life in the conditions of market economy become a high-value product