Anonymization of Court Decisions: Are Restrictions on the Right to Information in “Accordance with the Law”?

Open access


In Lithuania rules for the anonymization of court decisions were introduced in 2005. These rules require automatic anonymization of all court decisions, which in the opinion of the authors violates the public interest to know and freedom of expression is unjustifiably restricted on behalf of the right to privacy. This issue covers two diametrically opposed human rights: the right to privacy and the right to information. The first question is how the balance between two equivalent rights could be reached. The second question is whether this regulation is in accordance with the law as it is established in the national Constitution and revealed by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania and developed by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The authors conclude that the legislator is not empowered to delegate to the Judicial Council issues which are a matter of legal regulation and suggest possible solutions evaluating practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights, and selected EU countries.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. “Apklausa parodė kaip ir kokių profesijų teisininkais pasitikima” (The survey showed what legal profession is trusted the most). (2013) //

  • 2. Berkmanas Tomas. “Doing Sanctions with Words: Legacy Scope Fairness and Future (?) of a Reprimand.” International Journal of Law Language & Discourse 6 (2016): 25–36.

  • 3. Buišienė Ona. “Valstybės valdžių ir valstybės institucijų sistemų konstituciniai pagrindai” (The Constitutional Grounds of the State Government and the State Institutions): 521–539. In: Toma Birmontienė and Arūnas Baublys eds. Lietuvos Konstitucinė teisė (Lithuanian Constitutional Law). Vilnius: Mykolo Romerio universitetas 2012.

  • 4. Council of the European Union. “Summary on a question-by-question basis from the answers given by the Member States to the questionnaire on case law” (2005) //

  • 5. Deviatnikovienė Ieva. Administracinė teisė: kategorijos apibrėžimai užduotys (Administrative Law: Categories Definitions Tasks). Vilnius: Justitia 2009.

  • 6. Dobryninas Aleksandras and Anna Drakšienė eds. Pasitikėjimo Lietuvos teisėsauga profiliai (Trust in Lithuanian law enforcement profiles). Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla 2012.

  • 7. Eotvos Karoly Institute. “Publicity in the Administration of Justice and the Disclosure of the Court Decisions.” (2009) //

  • 8. Greer Steven. “The exceptions to Articles 8 to 11 and of the European Convention on Human Rights.” Human Rights Files 15 (1997): 5–59.

  • 9. Gruodytė Eita and Saulė Milčiuvienė. “Ar Lietuvoje taikomas teismų procesinių sprendimų nuasmeninimas nepažeidžia visuomenės informavimo principo?” (Does anonymization of judicial decisions in Lithuania comply with the principle of freedom to receive information). Studijos šiuolaikinėje visuomenėje 7 (1) (2016): 184–196.

  • 10. Kiršienė Julija and Charles F. Szymanski. “Vertybinių nuostatų ugdymo rengiant teisininkus universitete galimybės” (A Value-Based Approach to Teaching Legal Ethics). Jurisprudencija 19 (4) (2012): 1327–1342.

  • 11. Kiršienė Julija. “Trimatė teisininko profesijos krizės problema” (The crisis of legal profession as three-dimensional problem). Jurisprudencija 22(2) (2015): 191–205.

  • 12. Lankauskas Mindaugas. “Balansavimas tarp teisės į privatumą ir saviraiškos laisvės Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo jurisprudencijoje” (Balancing the Right to Privacy from the Freedom of Expression According to the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights). Teisės problemos 2 (56) (2007): 103–131.

  • 13. “Noteikumi par tiesu informācijas publicēšanu mājaslapā internetā un tiesu nolēmumu apstrādi pirms to izsniegšanas” (Rules of court publication of information on the Internet homepage and judicial decisions on treatment prior to their issue) //

  • 14. “Report on Access to Judicial Information. Open society.” Justice initiatives (March 2009) //

  • 15. Šindeikis Algimantas. “Teismų procesinių sprendimų nuasmeninimo konstitucingumo problemos” (Constitutional problems of depersonalizing judicial procedural decisions). Jurisprudencija 3 (117) (2009): 41–58.

  • 16. Sinkevičius Vytautas. “The Law and the Substatutory Act in the Jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court”: 322–376. In: Egidijus Jarašiūnas and Egidijus Kūris eds. Constitutional Justice in Lithuania. Vilnius: The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania 2003.

  • 17. “Support to the Kazakh authorities in improving the quality and efficiency of the Kazakh justice system. Report on the Accessibility to Judicial Decisions through Publication Standards.” Joint Programme between the European Union and the Council of Europe (2015) //

  • 18. Versmissen Koen. Expert Report on Access to Court Decisions and Protection of Personal Data in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Skopje: OSCE Mission to Skopje 2011.

  • 19. “Visuomenė labiausiai pasitiki notarais mažiausiai antstoliais” (Society trust most in notaries least – in bailiffs). (2015) //

  • 1. Campbell v. the United Kingdom. The European Court of Human Rights 1992 no. 13590/88.

  • 2. Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Lietuvos Aidas 1992 no.33-1014.

  • 3. Huvig v. France. The European Court of Human Rights 1990 no. 11105/84.

  • 4. K.B. v. National Health Service Pensions Agency and Secretary of State for Health. The Court of Justice of the European Union 2004 C-117/01.

  • 5. Kruslin v. France. The European Court of Human Rights 1990 no. 11801/85.

  • 6. Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania. Official Gazette 1994 no. 46-851.

  • 7. P v. S and Cornwall County Council. The Court of Justice of the European Union 1996 C-13/94.

  • 8. Resolution No. 13P-378 On the Publishing of Judicial Decisions Judgments Rulings on the Internet. Judicial Council (September 9 2005) //

  • 9. Resolution of the Judicial Council On the Publishing of Judicial Procedural Decisions and Decisions of Judges Disciplinary Matters. TAR 2015 no. 2015-19002.

  • 10. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of December 19 1996. Official Gazette 1996 no. 126-2962.

  • 11. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of December 21 1999. Official Gazette 1999 no. 109-3192.

  • 12. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of March 15 2000. Official Gazette 2000 no. 23-585.

  • 13. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of May 9 2006. Official Gazette 2006 no. 51-1894.

  • 14. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of October 26 1995. Official Gazette 1995 no. 89-2007.

  • 15. Ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania of September 19 2005. Official Gazette 2005 no. 113-4131.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.42

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.138
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.281

Target audience: researchers and scholars in the fields of law and politics, with an acute interest in the cross-pollinations of disciplines, comparative approaches to regional issues, and active dialogue on pressing contemporary issues of theoretical and practical import.
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 351 230 10
PDF Downloads 143 103 1