Lithuanian supreme court upholds acquittal of journalists in defamation case

The Lithuanian Supreme Court (LAT) has ruled that journalists Artūras Jančys, Rūta Janutienė and Saulė Pauliuvienė were justifiably acquitted in a defamation case brought by Vytautas Valvonis, former head of the Bank of Lithuania’s Supervision Service, LRT reports.

The case centred on articles published in 2016 by the daily Lietuvos rytas, authored by Jančys, titled “Lietuvos bankas – per sprangus kąsnis ir STT” (“Bank of Lithuania – too tough a bite and the STT”) and “50 tūkstančių eurų kyšį dalijosi pasimėgaudami” (“They shared a €50,000 bribe with a smirk”), as well as TV reports by Janutienė and Pauliuvienė on the programme Patriotai (“Patriots”), broadcast on Lietuvos ryto TV.

Lower courts had established that the publications contained factually incorrect information about Valvonis, portraying him as having committed a serious corruption-related offence. However, they concluded that the journalists had acted without direct intent to defame, as they had not realised the information was false nor sought to harm Valvonis’ reputation.

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals from the prosecutor, Valvonis, and his authorised representative, which argued that evidence had been improperly assessed. The judges upheld the lower courts’ findings that the journalists had acted in good faith and lacked direct intent to defame.

The court noted that Jančys had gathered information from multiple sources and verified it to the extent possible. While the material was not unambiguous—relying partly on accounts from a credit union and an alleged transcript of conversations—Valvonis himself denied any connection to the criminal acts of a convicted individual, and investigative authorities provided no further clarification.

Janutienė and Pauliuvienė based their TV reports on Jančys’ articles. Though their statements about Valvonis were more strongly worded, the court emphasised that freedom of expression, under both national and European Human Rights Court precedent, protects not only inoffensive information but also content that may offend or disturb.

The judges also highlighted the public interest in investigating whether a senior official at a key state institution was linked to corrupt activities and whether insider trading had been properly examined. They underscored that criminal liability in a democratic society should be a last resort, used only when milder measures cannot protect legal rights.

The court concluded that the journalists’ professional conduct—including their verification of information from multiple sources and their belief in its accuracy—along with the absence of direct intent to defame and the availability of civil remedies for Valvonis, justified their acquittal.