In his posts on Fb, R. Žemaitaitis questioned whether or not the founding father of “Laisvės TV”, who raised funds for the Bayraktar fight drone meant for Ukraine, didn’t lose that cash in a on line casino, and he referred to as this fundraising a potential rip-off. In yet one more submit, R. Žemaitaitis assumed that “Tapinas and all different opinion makers employed by the property help Hitler and his horrible actions towards the Jews?”
Final December, the courtroom acknowledged R. Žemaitaitis’s posts as disseminated information, not opinion.
The courtroom ordered the politician to publish a message refuting the unfaithful info on his Fb account inside two weeks from the date of the courtroom resolution, which should stay on his Fb account indefinitely, and to delete beforehand revealed posts.
Klaipėda district courtroom consultant Monika Vismantė knowledgeable BNS that the defendant filed an enchantment. It requests the annulment of the choice of December 13 and the adoption of a brand new resolution – to reject the lawsuit concerning the popularity of the disseminated knowledge as unfaithful and humiliating the glory and dignity of an individual, enterprise fame, and to acknowledge the compensation as unfounded.
It is usually requested to award the incurred litigation prices within the courts of first occasion and appeals.
The courtroom of first occasion awarded A. Tapin 2 thousand. EUR, and “Laisvės TV” – 1 thousand. EUR non-pecuniary harm compensation.
A. Tapinas additionally appealed the courtroom’s resolution – he requests to vary the choice of the courtroom of first occasion within the half concerning the awarding of non-pecuniary harm and to award him and the tv station 10,000 every from the politician. EUR non-pecuniary harm compensation.
The general public additionally requests to redistribute the litigation prices awarded by the courtroom of first occasion, by awarding from the defendant in favor of the appellants all of the litigation prices incurred by them each within the courts of first occasion and appeals.
The courtroom knowledgeable BNS that the events’ complaints had been accepted by the choose’s decision on January 15, and each events got a 20-day deadline to submit their responses.
The representatives of A. Tapinas said within the lawsuit that in July and August 2022, R. Žemaitaitis unfold unfaithful info in posts on the social community Fb. A declare was made to the politician, requiring him to disclaim unfaithful info, however he didn’t reply.
A. Tapinas emphasised within the lawsuit that the statements of R. Žemaitaitis can’t be evaluated as opinions within the authorized sense, as a result of they correspond to the indicators of data. It was additionally emphasised that the skilled fame of “Laisvės TV” and the glory and dignity of A. Tapinas had been broken by the defendant’s cynical statements, that are utterly unfaithful, presuppose damaging public attitudes and are insulting, in order that they have to be denied and, within the case of unfaithful knowledge, deleted.
R. Žemaitaitis disagreed with the declare and requested for it to be rejected as unfounded and to be awarded the incurred litigation prices. He claimed that he didn’t publish any deceptive or unfaithful details regarding the plaintiffs in his account, however solely expressed his opinion regarding sure publicly declared conduct of the plaintiffs and personally evaluated and in contrast the information publicly introduced by the plaintiffs themselves.
The politician said that considered one of his duties is to publicly educate his opinion on problems with public concern and to attract the general public’s consideration to sure topical issues, so he can’t be unreasonably punished for this or in any other case restricted in his proper to publicly educate his opinion.
“After evaluating the data, the courtroom discovered that, though the taught info was tried to be offered as an opinion, utilizing the query type, the phrase “potential”, however following analyzing the complete content material of the data, the courtroom concluded that the knowledge supplied has clear options of creating details, subsequently it acknowledged that within the aforementioned the knowledge supplied within the data is certified as information, not opinion,” knowledgeable the courtroom.
The data disseminated by R. Žemaitaitis was acknowledged as violating the glory and dignity {and professional} fame – the courtroom assessed the content material of the knowledge disseminated, the extent of dissemination, the truth that each events are public individuals, and the knowledge was revealed a number of instances, thus inflicting doubts regarding A. Tapinus and his actions .
#Member #Seimas #Žemaitaitis #requests #annulment #courtroom #resolution #defamation #Tapinas
2024-06-04 03:16:15
