Court orders Žemaitaitis to pay journalist €2,000 over Facebook posts
Thursday 22nd October 2026 on 16:15 in
Lithuania
A Vilnius City District Court ruled that MP Remigijus Žemaitaitis had damaged journalist Edmundas Jakilaitis’s honour, dignity and reputation in Facebook posts, ordering him to pay €2,000 in non-pecuniary damages, LRT reported Thursday.
The court said the posts, which asked whether Jakilaitis had been “attacked by pinworms” and described him as “a Kremlin worm writhing to please the conservative gang”, were opinions published unethically and without a factual basis.
Žemaitaitis must remove the posts from Facebook within five days after the ruling takes effect. Jakilaitis had sought €10,000 in damages and reimbursement of legal costs. The court granted his claim in part and also ordered Žemaitaitis to pay about €4,700 in legal costs.
The ruling is not yet in force and can be appealed. The lawsuit concerned a post Žemaitaitis shared on Facebook on October 7 last year, which included an excerpt from Jakilaitis’s programme. Jakilaitis, a journalist and public figure, had previously reported the post to law enforcement. Police opened a pre-trial investigation into possible defamation, but discontinued it in December last year.
Earlier case involving Andrius Tapinas
Courts have previously considered claims over Žemaitaitis’s statements. In April 2024, the Klaipėda Regional Court upheld a lower court ruling that statements about public figure Andrius Tapinas and the public institution he founded, Laisvės TV, were untrue and harmed their honour and dignity.
Žemaitaitis was ordered to delete the posts and pay €2,000 to Tapinas, €1,000 to Laisvės TV and €7,200 in legal costs. The claims concerned statements about Tapinas and a fundraising campaign for Ukraine that he organised, including the collection of money to buy a Bayraktar combat drone and allegations that Tapinas had lost money.
Žemaitaitis told the court that when he referred to “Andriukas” in comments about thousands of euros allegedly being misappropriated, he did not mean Tapinas. His lawyers said he had raised questions about the transparency of Ukraine fundraising campaigns in order to monitor how donations were used.