skip to Main Content

Complaint – Infringement of EU law by Mr. Aurimas Drižius – chief editor of weekly newspaper „Laisvas laikraštis“

2.1 Which national measure(s) do you think are in breach of EU law and why?
EU law speaks about freedom of speech and freedom of the press, etc. But the journalism itself is
declared a crime in Lithuania. Local courts of Lithuania imposed censorship to our newspaper, saying,
that „you are not allowed to write stories about privatisation of „Mazeikiu nafta“(largest refinery of this
country) and how Mr. Alvydas Sadeckas (former chairman of the National security committee of Lithuanian parliament) is connected to this privatisation“.

The ban to write a story or the censorship was implemented back in 2009, and since then I am in the court instantly. I was sentenced not for the slander, since I provide facts and documents, confirming the newspaper stories, but for „writing a story“. Even the court sentences says : „he comited a crime, writing a story…“. In other words, journalism itself is called a crime in this mafia controlled country, so callel Republic of Lithuania.

I tried for seven times to cancel the censorship, and legalize the journalism, but the local coorts seven
times rejected my complains, saying that censorship is legal in EU member county Lithuania. The last time the Supreme Court of Lithuania declared, that sending reporters to jail for writing their stories does not violate any EU and Lithuania law:

 

2.2 Which is the EU law in question?
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognise freedom of expression and freedom of information as fundamental Human rights.

Even though these documents are recognised universally, their enforcement depends widely on the state’s will on adapting measures of implementation. On the European level, the Council of Europe provides a legal framework through the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), whose enforcement is assured through the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) jurisdiction.

[2] ECHR Article 10 on Freedom of expression says:

„1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2.The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.“

2.3 Describe the problem, providing facts and reasons for your complaint* (max. 7000
characters):
Facts of the complaint
1. Vilnius district court stated in its decision (2009-04-10) in civil case Nr. 2-117-734-2009 that „to ban writing stories for Mr. Drizius and newspaper „Laisvas laikraštis“ about the links of Mr. Alvydas
Sadeckas to Compay „Mazeikiu nafta“, and its privatisation.
2. Vilnius district court rejected my request to cancel the sensorship
3. Vilnius regional court (2013-03-14) rejected my request to cancel sensorship of the media.

4. Vilnius regional court (2014-09-09) rejected my request to cancel the sensorship in civil case nr. 2S-
1627-803/2014

5. Supreme court of Lithuania on 2019-09-07 (Nr. 3P-1352/2019) rejected my request to ban the
censorship, stating, that journalism is a crime, and that writing a story itself is a criminal act in
Lithuania.

Since then I ws convicted by local courts just for doing my job – journalism. I was charged withe criminal charges – disobeying the court order and convicted for six times as a criminal.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Lithuania on their decision on 2019-09-07 (Nr. 3P-1352/2019) stated, that journalism is a crime, and that writing a story itself is a criminal act in Lithuania.
The Supreme Court stated, that: „it found no evidence, that censorship is illegal and in contradiction with the law of this country“.
In other word, the Supreme Court found and declared that censorship is legal and journalism itself is a
crime in Lithuania.

Pictured three so called judges of Supreme court, declared, that  journalism is a crime

Here is the document in original language:

It is happening right now in EU country Lithuania.
I am an editor of weekly newspaper “Laisvas Laikraštis”, and I am in the journalism for last 25 years, but
situation with the freedom of the press was never so tragic, as it is now.

In other words, the court imposed censorship to our newspaper, and since I continued to write stories about this largest privatisation and provided documents, how Mr. Sadeckas directed this privatization, local courts sentenced me six times on criminal charges. Vilnius district court declared that censorship in implemented by the court order, and since I disobeyed this order, I am a criminal just for doing my job – journalism. I was sentenced for this „crimes“for six times, and six times local courts rejected my complaints and requests to overrule censorship.

That is a clear violation of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it‘s article 15:
1 . No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not
constitute a criminal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the imposition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby.
2. Nothing in this article shall prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission
which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law
recognized by the community of nations.
It is also in clear violation of Article 14
1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge
against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and
public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Since according to the Lithuanian law, the censorship is prohibited in this country, but local courts ignore this law.
It is also in clear violation of Article 18
1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include
freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in
community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance,
practice and teaching.
It is also clear violation of Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardles.

Journalism is not a crime, but it is a crime to persecute the media just for doing its duties.
But we have situation otherwise in Lithuania – independent journalism and investigation about the dirtiest jobs of our government is declared a crime.
That situation continues for more than a decade – since censorship was implemented back in 2009, and
the courts rejected my claims to cancel censorship for six times since then.
Finally, the Supreme Court of this country declared, that censorship is legal n Lithuania.
Journalism itself is not a crime, and writing a story is not a criminal act. Freedom of the press is described as a right to publish newspapers, magazines, and other printed matter without governmental restriction and subject only to the laws of libel, obscenity, sedition, etc
However, the state of Lithuania declared that journalism itself is a crime, and writing stories and
investigations about dirty privatisation deals in the country itself is a crime.
The Supreme Court of Lithuania declared that journalism is a crime itself.
It is total corruption of the legal system of this country, since even the Constitution of Lithuania states, that ideas and free word cannot be controlled or censored.
44 article of Constitution forbids the censorship of mass media.

Despite all these declarations, that Lithuanian is free, independent and democratic country,  the journalist, and editor, is being persecuted by past policemen, and politician, chairman of National security committee of Lithuanian parliament , Mr. Alvydas Sadeckas, prosecutor office and courts already more than 10 years only for WRITING stories and articles.

In all the court decisions and sentences it is stated, that I, Aurimas Drižius, am on purpose prolonging
committing a crime: TO WRITE ARTICLES.
There are several decisions, that it is started exactly in these words „He, prolonging his criminal actions – writing articles…, committed new crimes – he wrote articles“.

It would be not possible in any other democratical country.

Newspaper, that I edit, has a feature of the hard critics of what is happening here in Lithuania. It is mostly political newspaper, with some left wing writers sometimes – they normally cannot get tribune here in Lithuania, as left- wing thinking is also treated as a crime: as social politics, medicine, and even army things cannot be critised – they are the dark zone of corruption.
So, my authors are qualified and they give facts based on reality, and on what is happening in Lithuania,
and the other papers mostly write opinion, but not news, and mostly people cannot get the whole picture of Lithuanian and even European events only reading „mainstream media“. That is why they choose my paper and other small papers.
Also the persecutions of mine inspire me to write more articles about corruption.
Many of my articles that are treated like crimes are only information about the court processes against me.
Mostly I cite something from the court decisions, and also what the court said, or what I said.
Later on Alvydas Sadeckas, prosecutors and courts charge me of new crimes: they treat, that I prolong my criminal actions – writing.
In such a manner I, journalist and writer, am persecuted in democratic country, and my profession is
treated as a crime. According to my information, other journalists, who do not keep silent, are also
persecuted in various other ways. But in all the documentation it is written, that writing is a crime. There are various articles of Criminal code used, but they are combined also in such a way, which leads to the total control of freedom speech. Other journalists are banned from writing, using article 170 (hate speech about social groups – and social groups are EU, NATO, western values, police, army, secret services, and even „groups“, that do not exists in reality). Other journalists – also me – are being persecuted by articles 154-155 (crime telling lies about the person.) 155 had been decriminalized, but the 154 has left. I, personally, am being persecuted by the article 245 – that I did not follow the court decision – wrote articles, although it has been forbidden for me. That is why I have got many cases by this article 245. That totally contradicts the Declaration of Human fundamental rights – that also binds Lithuania, as a member. 10 article, 2 part states, that nobody can be persecuted for the opinion.
In Lithuania even when I won already a case in the Highest court of Lithuania, that happened 2015 October
The 1 sty, where the court, consisting of 7 judges, has decided, that writing cannot be treated as criminal
action, and the courts cannot ban writing in the future, telling, what to write and what not, as it contradicts Constitution, 44 article, – no court or institution has paid attention to that decision (Nr. Nr. 2K-7-205-222/2015). The essence of the case was, that Vilnius court has forbidden me and my newspaper to publish articles about Alvydas Sadeckas, linking him to company „Mažeikių nafta“ – in which he had shares, and it is obcious fact.
For that reason if even one sentence has appeared in the newspaper, I edit, courts and prosecutor would
initiate a case against me, even ex officio, even when the law doesn‘t provide with such a possibility.
In such a manner at the moment 4 more cases are being finished with a massive media censorship
requirement in XXI century, in democratic country – according to a breach of 245 articles – and the courts do not pay attention, that they did not follow other law – that is Constitution, 44 articles, and Declaration of Fundamental Human rights, 10 article.
My property is being sold, and even shares of the company, that owns a paper, are being arrested in order to pay the debts, that I have because I am treated as a criminal.
There are even more cases initiated every month by the same man – Alvydas Sadeckas, but not all the
courts listen to his pleas. There are several weeks that I cannot work with newspaper and I go to court like to a work. That is direct confusion of my professional work, and also, that is a threat to democracy: is a journalist tries to write a truth, he has been confused with criminal and civil cases, in order not to have time for the direct professional work – a spread of information.
In last criminal case I have been sentenced to jail in the analogous case – that I did not follow court‘s
demand not to write. I am treated as a criminal, who must go to the jail for 18 months, because I am a
journalist.
Moreover – I have been sentenced more than killers, robbers or thieves – as mostly they get no jail and
walk in the freedom.
Isn‘t strange, that in democratic country journalism is a crime?
When I was sentenced to jail, a judge Dzedulionis in Vilnius district court even started to teach me for the 15 minutes in hard words – that I must stop writing, because I have problems because I am a journalist.
That means, in democratic country no court, no judge follows Constitution, and also international
community rules – that in democratic country it is impossible to ban free word, and to control mass media – and in such a manner, also adding the silence of international community, journalism is treated harder than mafia, and a journalist, like I, who fights for the freedom of mind, and information spread – must go to jail.
Please, start a case against Lithuania in international community, or inform international community about the persecution of freedom of speech in Lithuania, please, European commission, start a case in European and courts, as I am fighting almost alone, many people has been silenced, hard – talking journalists went out of this job. Lithuania doesn‘t follow the rules of international community, and doesn‘t follow the requirements of their own Constitution, which is based on the primary, fundamental human rights – right to the freedom of speech, which is not deniable even in such countries like Mongolia, or Russia.
Why it is so that in Lithuania freedom of speech exists only in paper, which is called Constitution – which was implemented after 1992 10 25 referendum? Why is did not come to life – this highest law of Lithuania?
And why lower courts do not follow Constitution, higher court decisions and also international rules – that no man can be deprived from his innate rights, and one of the innate human right it is a right to express his own opinion – a right to freedom of speech.
Because of this rude and lasting intrusion of international law, European Union laws, and local Constitution,
please:
Start a procedure against Lithuania because of the breach of human rights, stated in Lithuanian
Constitution 44 article, Declaration of Fundamental Human rights 10 article, and in all other laws
reglamenting freedom of speech, as in Lithuania journalism according to local courts is treated as a crime, and journalists are sentenced to jail.
Please take immediate actions, since I am persecuted for more than ten years, and in the latest case I was
sentenced for two years in prison for “disregard of the courts”, since I called the mentioned judges “the
criminals”.

 

 

C(2021)123134

 

Dear Mr Drizius,

 

The Citizens’ Enquiries Unit of the European Parliament has received your message 1 March 2021.

 

The European Union (EU) is committed to respecting the freedom and pluralism of the media as well as the right to receive and impart information and freedom of expression. Although these principles are enshrined in Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, media freedom has been deteriorating in recent years, as threats, harassment, public shaming and even assassinations of media actors are on the rise.

 

In its November 2020 resolution, the European Parliament reiterated its concerns about the state of media freedom within the EU, the abuses and attacks perpetrated against journalists and media workers and the ‘growing public denigration and general weakening of the profession’.

 

The European Parliament deplored government interferences and highlighted the high vulnerability of female journalists to harassment and intimidation. It also stressed that disinformation threatens freedom of information and it reiterated that measures ‘should focus on fostering a plurality of opinions through the promotion of high-quality journalism’. Further information is available in the press release.

 

Following the murders of investigative journalists in the EU, the European Parliament adopted a resolution in April 2018 strongly condemning these deaths. It also called for better protection and deplored the insulting comments by EU politicians towards journalists. Further information is available in the press release.

 

In May 2018, following a plenary debate, the European Parliament adopted a resolution calling on the EU countries to ‘safeguard and promote a pluralist, independent and free media landscape’ and to ensure a safe and secure environment for journalists and media workers.

The European Parliament discussed media freedom in plenary debates, for instance on the crimes committed against journalists, on the Hungarian interference in foreign media and on the deterioration of media freedom in Belarus.

 

Members of the European Parliament addressed many written questions to the European Commission on media freedom, for instance on the threat to media freedom in the context of COVID-19, the censorship in public media and the government control of the media during the COVID-19 crisis.

 

European Commission’s actions

In March 2020, the European Commission presented the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy 2020-2024, which aimed to address major challenges to democracy, including the need to strengthen media freedom and pluralism.

 

Furthermore, the European Commission has allocated funds to launch a Europe-wide rapid response mechanism in order to detect and prevent violations of press and media freedom, as well as helping to mitigate the deterioration of media freedom in EU countries.

 

In its November 2018 conclusions, the Council of Ministers underlined the importance of media pluralism, which needs to be strengthened as a way to ‘empower citizens, protect democracy and to effectively counter the spread of disinformation.’

 

If you wish to comment on the speeches and/or political positions of a particular Member, you may contact them directly using the contact details available on their personal page on the Parliament’s website. A list of MEPs is available here.

 

Finally, the European Parliament Liaison Office in Lithuaniamaybe of interest and of assistance to you.

 

 

 

We thank you for contacting the European Parliament.

 

Yours sincerely,

Piliečių informavimo skyrius

www.europarl.europa.eu/askEP/lt

 

Here is one example of how journalism is treated like a crime in Republic Of Lithuania

 

Criminal case Nr. 1A-815-497/2014

District court of Vilnius

Court order

2015 february 2

Original court order in Lithuanian language:

cininas-2 (translaited to English) :

 

The Chamber of Judges of the Criminal Cases Division of the Vilnius Regional Court, consisting of the Chairman of the Chamber Audrius Cininas,

Judges Virginija Pakalnytė-Tamošiūnaitė, Gintaras Dzedulionis,

with Renata Novickienė as secretary,

in the presence of Prosecutor Danuta Kisiniene,

the victim’s representative, lawyer Mindaugas Kukaitis,

convicted Aurimas Drižius,

lawyer Anatoly Svila, lawyer,

 

In a public court hearing in 2014, examined the criminal case on the basis of the appeal of the convicted person Aurimas Drižius against the Vilnius City District Court in 2014. September 15 sentence sentenced by Aurimas Drižius:

– according to Article 245 of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania (for publication on 08/06/2013) 20 (twenty) days arrest;

– according to Article 245 of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania (for publication 2013-06-29) 20 (twenty) days arrest;

– according to Article 245 of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania (for publication 2013-07-20) 20 (twenty) days arrest

– according to Article 245 of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania (for publication 07/09/2013) 20 (twenty) days in custody;

– according to Article 245 of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania (for publication 2013-10-05) 20 (twenty) days arrest;

– according to Article 245 of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania (for publication 2013-10-12) 20 (twenty) days arrest;

– according to Article 245 of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania (for publication 2013-10-19) 20 (twenty) days arrest;- according to Article 245 of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania (for publication 2013-11-30) 20 (twenty) days arrest.

Pursuant to Paragraphs 1 and 4 of Article 63 of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania, the sentences imposed were aggregated by partial aggregation and Aurimas Drižius was sentenced to 45 (forty five) days of arrest.Pursuant to Article 63, Paragraphs 2 and 5 of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania. 2 p., 9 d. the sentence imposed by this sentence was combined with the sentence imposed by the Vilnius City District Court on 9 December 2013 by way of confiscation and the sentence of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment imposed on Aurimas Drižius.Pursuant to Article 75 of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania. the execution of the custodial sentence was postponed for 1 year and 6 months, obliging Aurimas Drižiai not to leave the city (district) of the place of residence without the permission of the institution supervising the convict.Aurimas Drižius was awarded LTL 10,000 (ten thousand litas) in non-pecuniary damage in favor of Alvydas Sadeckas.The panel of judges after hearing the case Aurimas Drižius was convicted for failing to comply with a court decision not related to punishment, i. y. he, knowing that the decision of the Vilnius City 1st District Court, adopted on 10-04-2009 and which entered into force on 10.05.2009, which is not related to punishment, in civil case no. 2-117-734-2009, he and UAB Laisvas laikraštis were forbidden to publish essays in the weekly Laisvas laikraštis in which Alvydas Sadeckas would be associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, the privatization of this company and the murder of Gediminas Kiesaus as UAB Laisvas laikraštis ”And the weekly newspaper“ Laisvas laikraštis ”, the editorial office of which is located in Vilnius, Konstitucijos ave. 23, editor, not complying with the above-mentioned court decision of 10-04-2009, in the weekly newspaper „Laisvas laikraštis (08-14 June 2013 No. 23 (430)) in the article :

„Car accident“ “ Mazeikiu Nafta ”, with the privatization of this company, and publicly disseminated the following statements:

<…> The founder of the Excise Bureau not only has connections with the mentioned company, but also participated in solving the issues of privatization of Mažeikos Nafta

…<…> It became clear that A. Sadeck’s participation in the privatization of AB Mažeikių Nafta, as it were, direct or indirect, has finally been recognized. And this means that A. Sadeckas lied, filing a preventive lawsuit and testifying in the courts that he was NOT involved in the privatization. Namely, such a position of A. Sadeckas should be assessed as giving false testimony and spreading a lie in a document.

<…> A.Drižius was then glad that he finally managed to establish the fact that A.Sadeckas WAS somehow participated in the privatization of AB Mažeikių Nafta.

In addition, Aurimas Drižius was convicted for knowing that the decision of the Vilnius City 1st District Court, which was adopted on 10-04-2009 and entered into force on 10/05/2009, and was not related to the punishment, in civil case no. 2-117-734-2009, he and UAB Laisvas laikraštis were forbidden to publish essays in the weekly Laisvas laikraštis in which Alvydas Sadeckas would be associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, the privatization of this company and the murder of Gediminas Kiesaus as UAB Laisvas laikraštis ”And the weekly newspaper“ Laisvas laikraštis ”, the editorial office of which is located in Vilnius, Konstitucijos ave. 23, the editor, without complying with the above-mentioned court decision of 10 April 2009, in the weekly newspaper “Laisvas laikraštis” (29 June 2013-5 July 2013 No. 26 (433)) in the article “D. Do Valys cover Mafia crimes? ”, Alvydas Sadeckas was associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, with the privatization of this company, and publicly disseminated the following statements:<…> describes the role of A. Sadeckas in the privatization of Mazeikiu Nafta …<…> A. Sadeckas personally received LTL 300 per hour for those consultations …<…> after learning that Alvydas Sadeckas participated in all stages of the company’s privatization.<…> plaintiff A. Sadeckas participated in the privatization of AB Mažeikių Nafta …By the way. Aurimas Drižius was convicted for the fact that, knowing that the decision of the Vilnius City 1st District Court, which was adopted on 10-04-2009 and entered into force on 10/05/2009, and was not related to the punishment, in civil case no. 2-117-734-2009, he and UAB .Laisvas laikraštis were forbidden to publish in the weekly “Laisvas laikraštis” essays in which Alvydas Sadeckas would be associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, the privatization of this company and the murder of Gediminas Kiesaus as UAB Laisvas laikraštis „Director and the weekly ..Laisvas laikraštis“, the editorial office of which is located in Vilnius, Konstitucijos ave. 23, editor, without complying with the above-mentioned court decision of 10-04-2009, in the weekly newspaper “Laisvas laikraštis” (20-26 July 2013 No. 28 (435)) of 20/07/2013 in the article “Judges examine cases without even seeing them”, Alvydas Sadeck was associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, with the privatization of this company, and publicly disseminated the following statements:<…> In the case of „Laisvas laikraštis“ against A. Sadeckas, Judge J.Vėgėlienė also ruled that it could not be related to „Mažeikių nafta“ and its privatization, although the Vilnius Regional Court ruled that A. Sadeckas’ participation in „Mažeikių nafta“ “Privatization is proven.In addition, Aurimas Drižius was convicted for knowing that the decision of the Vilnius City 1st District Court, which was adopted on 10-04-2009 and entered into force on 10/05/2009, and was not related to the punishment, in civil case no. 2-117-734-2009, he and UAB .Laisvas laikraštis were forbidden to publish in the weekly “Laisvas laikraštis” essays in which Alvydas Sadeckas would be associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, the privatization of this company and the murder of Gediminas Kiesaus as UAB Laisvas laikraštis ”And the weekly newspaper“ Laisvas laikraštis ”, the editorial office of which is located in Vilnius, Konstitucijos ave. 23, editor, without complying with the above-mentioned court decision of 10-04-2009, in the weekly newspaper “Laisvas laikraštis” (September 7-13, 2013 No. 34 (441)) in the article “The clan of judges works like a fist – although Judge Jolanta Vėgėlienė examined the case without her, it is not a crime, ”Alvydas Sadeckas was associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, with the privatization of this company, and publicly disseminated the following statements:<…> In the case of „Laisvas laikraštis“ against A. Sadeckas, Judge J. Vėgėlienė also ruled that it could not be associated with Mažeikių Nafta and its privatization, although the Vilnius Regional Court ruled that A. Sadeckas’ participation in Mažeikių Nafta “Privatization is proven.In addition, Aurimas Drižius was convicted for knowing that the decision of the Vilnius City 1st District Court, which was adopted on 10-04-2009 and entered into force on 10/05/2009, and was not related to the punishment, in civil case no. 2-117-734-2009, he and UAB .Laisvas laikraštis were forbidden to publish in the weekly “Laisvas laikraštis” essays in which Alvydas Sadeckas would be associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, the privatization of this company and the murder of Gediminas Kiesaus as UAB Laisvas laikraštis ”And the weekly newspaper“ Laisvas laikraštis ”, the editorial office of which is located in Vilnius, Konstitucijos ave. 23, the editor, without complying with the above-mentioned court decision of 10/04/2009, in the article “D. Grybauskaitė’s favorite D. Valys personally covered mafia crimes? ”, Alvydas Sadeckas was associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, with the privatization of this company, and publicly disseminated the following statements:<…> A. Sadeckas not only participated, but also practically managed all the stages of privatization of AB Mažeikių Nafta from 2000 to 2006.<…> A. Sadeckas led the privatization of Mažeikių Nafta …<…> A. Sadeckas was the personal draftsman of the Draft Law on the Privatization of Mazeikiu Nafta …<…> A. Sadecko back in 2008. The written complaint prohibiting its connection with Mažeikių Nafta and its privatization was in itself a lie and a crime.<…> the complaint filed by A. Sadeckas regarding the prohibition to associate it with Mažeikių Nafta was false and criminal …<…> A. Sadeckas participated in all stages of privatization of AB Mažeikių Nafta – back in 2000. as a consultant to IVilliams, receiving LTL 300 per hour for consultations for the company Mažeikių Nafta …<…> Having already become a member of the Seimas, A. Sadeckas drafted the Law on the Reorganization of AB Būtingės Nafta, Mažeikių Nafta and Naftotiekis …<…> I can say that all the actions of A. Sadeckas, as the Chairman of the Seimas NSGK, were possibly illegal and criminal in privatizing Mazeikiu Nafta …<…> A. Sadeckas was directly involved in the privatization of this company …<…> A. Sadeckas not only personally participated in the privatization of AB Mažeikių Nafta, led it, but also personally submitted amendments to the law according to which AB Mažeikių Nafta was privatized …<…> A. Sadeckas, being a shareholder of Mažeikių Nafta, solved the issues of privatization of this company, although he had to withdraw from consideration of this issue – at the same time A. Sadeckas was a shareholder of AB Mažeikių Nafta, which means that confused public and private interests. A. Sadeckas not only dahated, but actually led the privatization of AB Mažeikių Nafta, because in the very first stage of privatization of AB Mažeikių Nafta, which took place in 2000-2001, A. Sadeckas amended the draft law …<…> A. Sadeckas personally participated in 1999. during the privatization stage of Mazeikiu Nafta …<…> A. Sadeckas personally provided management services to AB Mažeikių naftai, i.e. A. Sadeckas not only participated in the privatization of this company, was its shareholder, but actually managed it and received remuneration for it …<…> Ahydas Sadeckas, participated in the privatization of AB Mažeikių Nafta …<…> Ahydas Sadeckas not only participated, but actually led the privatization of AB Mažeikių Nafta …By the way. Aurimas Drižius was convicted for the fact that he, knowing that the decision of the Vilnius City 1st District Court, which was adopted on 10-04-2009 and entered into force on 10/05/2009, and was not related to punishment, in civil case no. 2-117-734-2009, he and UAB Laisvas laikraštis were forbidden to publish essays in the weekly Laisvas laikraštis in which Alvydas Sadeckas would be associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, the privatization of this company and the murder of Gediminas Kiesaus as UAB Laisvas laikraštis ”And the weekly newspaper“ Laisvas laikraštis ”, the editorial office of which is located in Vilnius, Konstitucijos ave. 23, editor, without complying with the above-mentioned court decision of 10-04-2009, in the weekly newspaper “Laisvas laikraštis” (12-18 October 2013 No. 39 (446)) in the article “Is it possible to state that V.Uspaskich has convicted Judge Daiva Pranytė-Zaleskienė is a criminal? ”, associated Alvydas Sadeckas with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, with the privatization of this company, and publicly disseminated the following statements:<…> A. Sadeckas not only participated, but in fact led the privatization of AB Mažeikių Nafta …<…> that A. Sadeckas personally participated in the privatization stage of Mažeikių Nafta in 1999 …<…> The petitioner also notes that A. Sadeckas led and participated in all stages of the privatization of Mažeikių Nafta, starting in 2000 and ending in 2007 …<…> does not take into account the arguments submitted by the petitioner that the illegal participation of A. Sadeckas in the privatization of AB Mažeikių Nafta has been proved.In addition, Aurimas Drižius was convicted for knowing that the decision of the Vilnius City 1st District Court, which was adopted on 10-04-2009 and entered into force on 10/05/2009, and was not related to the punishment, in civil case no. 2-117-734-2009 he and UAB Laisvas laikraštis were forbidden to publish in the weekly newspaper Laisvas laikraštis articles in which Alvydas Sadeckas would be associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, the privatization of this company and the murder of Gediminas Kiesaus as UAB Laisvas laikraštis director of the weekly newspaper “Laisvas laikraštis”, the editorial office of which is located in Vilnius, Konstitucijos ave. 23, editor, without complying with the above-mentioned court decision of 10 April 2009, in the weekly newspaper “Laisvas laikraštis” (19-25 October 2013 No. 40 (447)) in the article “Courts and prosecutor’s office covered A. Sadecko for five years Alvydas Sadeckas was associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, with the privatization of this company, and publicly disseminated the following statement:<…> A. Sadeckas managed all three stages of the privatization of this company …In addition, Aurimas Drižius, knowing that the decision of the Vilnius City 1st District Court, adopted on 10 April 2009 and which entered into force on 10 May 2009, which is not related to punishment, in civil case no. 2-117-734-2009, he and UAB Laisvas laikraštis were forbidden to publish essays in the weekly Laisvas laikraštis in which Alvydas Sadeckas would be associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, the privatization of this company and the murder of Gediminas Kiesaus as UAB Laisvas laikraštis ”And the weekly newspaper“ Laisvas laikraštis ”, the editorial office of which is located in Vilnius, Konstitucijos ave. 23, editor, not complying with the above-mentioned court decision of 10 April 2009, in the weekly newspaper “Laisvas laikraštis” (30 November 2013 – 6 December 2013 No. 45 (452)) in the article “Corruption decisions opened Zeliankai way to The Supreme Court „“, Alvydas Sadeckas was associated with the joint-stock company Mažeikių Nafta, with the privatization of this company, and publicly disseminated the following statements:<…> due to suspected false statements of A. Sadeckas in four cases, in which he denied that he had participated in any way in the privatization of Mazeikiu Nafta …<…> A. Sadeckas participated in all stages of the company’s privatization …<…> A. Sadeckas was not only the author of the Law on Privatization of Mazeikiu Nafta …<…> he (A. Sadeckas) drafted the laws on the privatization of Mažeikių Nafta …<…> I categorically state that the actions of A. Sadeckas as illegal and harmful while participating in the privatization of AB Mažeikių Nafta …Aurimas Drižius, convicted in an appeal, requests the annulment of the Vilnius City District Court’s 2014 decision. September 15 conviction and acquit him for not committing an act having the characteristics of a crime. The appellant states in the complaint that the court had banned the printing of the articles by UAB Laisvas laikraštis and not by UAB Laisvo laikraščio leidyba, which printed them. As evidence, he submitted to the appeal a contract with Lietuvos Paštas on 2 February 2009, which presents the weekly newspaper Laisvas laikraštis to its subscribers. Indicates that, if necessary, all agreements with partners may be submitted to the court, which would prove that the weekly newspaper „Laisvas laikraštis“ has been published by UAB „Laisvo laikraščio leidyba“, which is not subject to any censorship.Appellant alleges that the district court imposed censorship on him to print the relevant statements and prosecuted him after they were printed. According to the appellant, the application of censorship does not comply with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania or the international obligations of the Republic of Lithuania, and violates the right of journalists to inform the public about negative phenomena. According to the appellant, for the fact that he disregarded this censorship, he continued to write articles about the participation of A. Sadeckas and his company in the privatization and management of Mažeikių Nafta. 09 in this case.According to the appellant, the above-mentioned court decision was aimed at controlling the volume of information published prior to its publication, and censorship was imposed on „Laisvam laiklapas“, for violation of which has already been convicted in five cases. 15 ordered the prosecutor’s office to initiate a pre-trial investigation into the false testimony of A. Sadeck, but the Vilnius District Prosecutor’s Office terminated the investigation of A. Sadeck without even questioning it.The appellant also points out that A. Sadeckas applied to the court on January 21, 2008 to prohibit the appellant from publishing articles in the weekly „Laisvas laikraštis“ in which A. Sadeckas would be connected with AB „Mažeikių nafta“, its privatization and the murder of Gediminas Kiesaus. By decision of 9 April 2009, the Vilnius City District Court upheld this complaint of A. Sadeck and prohibited the appellant from publishing the said articles in the weekly „Laisvas laikraštis“. However, the court of first instance did not assess that fact and the submitted documents proving that the publishing rights of the weekly „Laisvas laikraštis“ (paper version) were still dated 26-10-2009. were transferred to UAB „Laisvo laikraščio leidyba“, which was established specifically for this purpose. Therefore, in the appellant ‘s opinion, since there is no court decision prohibiting UAB „Laisvo laikraščio leidyba“ from printing articles in which the appellant would be prohibited from printing the said statements, his persecution, which has lasted for many years, is also illegal.At the court hearing, the convict and his defense counsel requested that the appeal be upheld, and the prosecutor requested that the appeal be dismissed.The appeal must be dismissed.LR BK 245 str. provides for liability for non-enforcement of a judgment in a civil case, whether or not the judgment can be enforced by means of civil and / or administrative proceedings. If it is held that it is not possible to do so by those means, then it must be determined whether it was the perpetrator who, by his intentional act, created such a legal situation. A person is liable under Article 245 of the CC if he acted directly intentionally, i. y. realized that he was not fulfilling his duty illegally, and wanted to do so (LAT rulings in criminal cases No. 2K-47/2009, 2K-584/2010).Vilnius City 1st District Court 2009 April 10 decision in civil case no. 2-117- 734/2009 A. Drižis and UAB Laisvas laikraštis were prohibited from publishing essays in the weekly Laisvas laikraštis in which A. Sadeckas would be associated with AB Mažeikių Nafta, the privatization of this company and the murder of Gediminas Kiesaus. The decision entered into force in 2009. May 10 It is apparent both from the judgment of the appellate court and from the content of the appeal that the appellant is aware of the April 10 court decision and its prohibition (obligation). The appellant considers this decision as illegal and as censorship of the press, however, in this criminal case, the Vilnius City 1st District Court ruled in 2009. April 10 the legality and validity of the decision are not the subject of proof or dispute. This decision has entered into force and must be enforced in accordance with the law. In the present case, it is established and the convict himself does not dispute that he was aware of and understood the prohibition on the publication of the said essays established by this court decision, but deliberately did not comply with it.In his complaint, the appellant states that the publishing rights of the weekly „Laisvas laikraštis“ are still dated 26.10.2009. UAB Laisvo laikraščio leidyba was transferred, and a court decision prohibiting UAB Laisvo laikraščio Sadeckas would not be allowed to print the above-mentioned statements, in which A. Sadeckas would be associated with AB Mažeikių Nafta, the privatization of this company and the murder of Gediminas Kiesus. However, such an argument of the appellant’s complaint must be rejected. Although the weekly „Laisvas laikraštis“

The publishing rights of Laisvo laikraščio leidyba were transferred to UAB Laisvo laikraščio leidyba on 26 October 2009, but Aurimas Drižius remained not only the editor of the said company, but also the manager.

In the opinion of the Chamber, this circumstance does not release the appellant from criminal liability, as Aurimas Drižius, being the publishing editor, approving and directly influencing the content of the weekly, published an article linking A. Sadeckas with AB Mažeikių Nafta, privatization and Gediminas Kiesus’ murder. . As Aurimas Drižius is not only the editor, but also the head of the publishing company, according to his duties he makes decisions on the content of the article, its publication, implements these decisions and is responsible for them. In addition, the ban was applied not only to the publication, but also to A.Drižis personally.Criminal liability for non-execution of a court decision should be applied only taking into account the possibilities to ensure its execution by means of civil and / or administrative proceedings (LAT resolutions No. 2K-36/2012, 2K-219/2012). In the present case, there is no such possibility, as the enforcement of the judgment is reflected in the abstention from acts prohibited by the court. As long as the injunction is complied with, the judgment is enforced. The breach of the insurance in itself indicates that the judgment has not yet been enforced and that the question of its enforcement by civil or administrative means does not arise. In the assessment of the panel, the district court made a reasonable conclusion on the appellant’s guilt under Article 245 of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania.Taking into account the established circumstances, it can be concluded that the Vilnius City District Court in 2014 September 15 the sentence is lawful and reasonable, there are no grounds to change or annul it on the grounds of the appeal.The Chamber of Judges, in accordance with Article 326 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania. 1 d. 1 P-,has decided:dismiss the appeal of the convicted person Aurimas Drižius.President of the CollegeAudrius CininasJudgesV i rgi n ij a Pakai nytė-Tamošiūnaitė Gintaras Dzedulionis

 

 

Facebook komentarai
Back To Top });}(jQuery));