5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Vilnius. 6.  On 31 March 2001 the daily newspaper Respublika printed an open letter from the applicant to the Children’s Rights Ombudsman of Lithuania, G.I., complaining about the actions undertaken by the director, N.S., of the Children’s Welfare Service of the Vilnius City (Vilniaus miesto Vaiko teisių apsaugos tarnyba, hereinafter “the CWS”). It appears from the copy of the newspaper that the applicant had paid for the letter to be published. The letter was printed on one full page of the paper and comprised twenty-four paragraphs. 7.  In the letter the applicant complained about the CWS’s actions during her son’s custody proceedings. The applicant disclosed her and her son’s forenames and surname, his date of birth, and her former husband’s full name. She also described the entire chronology of the civil litigation between her and her former husband concerning her son’s place of residence. The applicant described in detail what had been said during the relevant court hearing. The article read:
“Having succumbed to psychological pressure from his father ... from March 2000 the child was treated in Vilnius Child Development Centre Psychiatric Unit. According to the conclusion of the psychiatrists, which on 17 May 2000 was provided to the CWS, ‘the boy is affected negatively by his father’s negative attitude towards his mother’. The doctors explained that they had treated my son four times longer than usual so that the child would not be traumatised by his father any longer. I could see my son and communicate with him only at the hospital, where, with the doctors’ help, he had been at least to a certain extent protected from the damaging influence of his father.” 8.  The applicant also quoted the report of a doctor from the children’s rehabilitation institution “Palangos gintaras”. The report, as cited by the applicant, read:
“[The father of the applicant’s son] did not pay for meals, but sometimes would come to the [sanatorium’s] canteen to eat and would eat his son’s portion ... Sometimes the father did not allow the doctors to examine his son, arguing that his son should rest. The father behaved despotically towards the child, sometimes he would not permit his son to attend treatment procedures. In bad weather, the father would take his son to the forest to gather berries, arguing that the father’s opinion mattered more than that of the doctor. On 17 July the father and son got into a fight. Afterwards the father did not allow the doctors to examine his son... The treatment prescribed did not have the expected effect. We [the doctors] think that the reason for that is possessiveness on the part of the father. The son needs psychiatric care.” 9.  On 3 April 2001 the daily newspaper Lietuvos Aidas published an article titled “Separation from her son causes great distress to mother” (Atimtas sūnus – didžiausias skausmas motinai), in which the applicant answered questions from a journalist. In a full page article she told the story of her estrangement from her former husband and described the child custody issues concerning their son. The applicant divulged the names of her son, her former husband and the CWS employees who had been involved in the proceedings. When answering the journalist’s question why her son had chosen to live with his father, the applicant stated that she had been made to leave her home and had had to rent a room somewhere else. The applicant also quoted an extract from a report by a municipal social-care inspector:
“When I [the municipal inspector] visited the applicant’s former husband’s home and saw how the boy interacts with his father, huge psychological tension and hatred towards the mother were apparent, even though, according to the child, earlier he had loved his mother very much, because she was good and took care of all their family. It was clear that the child, who is eleven years old, very much needs his mother, but his father encourages a negative attitude towards her ....” 10.  In the same article the applicant also recited the aforementioned report by the doctor from the children’s rehabilitation institution “Palangos gintaras”. Overall, the applicant was critical towards the CWS employees and contended that “the “specialists” in children’s rights in Lithuania were former seamstresses, engineers, agricultural workers, operators of building machines and the directors of juvenile prisons”. 11.  The Government submitted that the applicant had disclosed similar information, including the forenames and surnames of her son and former husband, on the television programme “Autodafe”, aired in May 2001. The Government were prepared to provide the tape of the show upon the Court’s request, although in their view the two articles published in Respublika and Lietuvos Aidas were fairly eloquent. 12.   On 15 June 2001 the daily newspaper Lietuvos Aidas published an article about the work of the CWS entitled “The overworked employees of the CWS are convinced that you cannot buy a child’s love” (Patiriančios stresą darbe VTAT darbuotojos įsitikinusios, kad vaiko meilės nusipirkti neįmanoma). In the article, the director of the CWS, N.S., described the day-to-day issues tackled by CWS employees. She noted, at the outset, that about 122,000 children live in Vilnius. As one of the recurring matters the director mentioned court proceedings with a view to establishing a child’s place of residence and pointed to children’s vulnerability when in court. To illustrate the issue, the director stated:
 “... [T]he court is examining a ... case against a thirteen-year-old teenager ...
The mother was divorced several years ago and is now living with another man ...
After the divorce, this woman and her former husband concluded a friendly settlement whereby she promised to visit and take care of the child ...
According to the CWS, this woman rarely meets the child; during a TV programme she admitted that she did not know her son’s telephone number ...
Although the woman alleged that she was not allowed to meet her child ... it is the child himself who does not want to see his mother, according to employees of the CWS ...
According to employees of the CWS, the boy used to recount that ... his mother ... rarely called him, [and] that she started attending parents’ meetings at school only after his grades deteriorated ...
[I]s it not possible to buy the love of one’s child by the slander of [State] services [?] ...
Why does the mother not go to the school; why does she not wait for him there? ...
‘[S]he could apologise; tell him that she loves him,’ considered the employees of the CWS ...
‘[T]he child’s bicycle and piano [were] left in the old apartment; why doesn’t the mother propose to her child that he play the instrument at least several hours per day?,’ wondered the employees of the [CWS] ...” 13.  The article went on to cite the child’s medical records, which the CWS had obtained from the Vilnius Child Development Centre Psychiatric Unit. The article read as follows:
“[The psychiatrists’] conclusion states that at present it is best for the boy to live with guardians, because the parents need psychological help. The psychiatrists’ conclusion states that the boy is hostile towards his mother, because she betrayed the family by marrying another man. Moreover, conflicts have arisen between the boy and his mother’s current husband. According to the doctor, his real father asks too much of the boy, and does not allow him to communicate with other children. The mother suspects that the boy could be being sexually abused. After [the doctors] examined the boy, no signs of abuse were discovered. The [psychiatrists’ conclusion] also states that when the boy was in hospital his mother called and said that because of her son’s behaviour she refused to come for consultations. When the boy was released from the hospital he was supposed to go to visit a farmhouse with his mother and other children. When the boy arrived at the farmhouse, he found his mother’s current husband there and became agitated. A conflict arose and the mother’s husband hit the boy. After the child returned to hospital ... the mother pulled the boy’s hair and bit him. The mother told the doctors that she had merely been defending herself from the child. In the near future the CWS employees will attend another court hearing, where it will be decided with whom the boy should live.”
 14.  The article did not mention any names or disclose the place of residence of any of the persons mentioned. 15.  On 15 June 2001, in reply to a complaint by the applicant about the actions of the CWS’s employees in the context of the custody proceedings, the Children’s Rights Ombudsman wrote:
“... the CWS employees did not take all steps to protect the boy’s interests ... That being so, besides psychological pressure from his father ... the child was negatively influenced by his mother’s [the applicant’s] actions. On this point the Ombudsman refers to a trip [with her son] on which the mother, in breach of recommendations by the doctors, brought her current husband, thus provoking a negative reaction from her son ... The relations between the applicant and her son, which were softening, broke down. The son categorically refused to communicate with his mother. At a meeting held soon afterwards at the Child Development Centre, it was decided that the child, at his own request, should leave the hospital with his father and go to a sanatorium. After that decision was taken, the mother started pulling the boy’s hair and bit him (she afterwards claimed self-defence).” 16.  In the report the Ombudsman urged the CWS to use all the powers provided by law to help resolve these child-rights issues. The applicant’s former husband was warned not to obstruct his son in communicating with his mother and other children.
The applicant was warned to respect her son’s wishes when questioned about his place of residence or her communications with him. Lastly, the Ombudsman emphasised that “in making public through the media information about her and her former husband’s relationship, his character, and other information about her former family and her son’s characteristics, as a consequence of which the child had experienced negative reactions from others and could not freely communicate with children of his own age, the applicant had breached her son’s right to private life, the inviolability of his person and his freedom”. 17.  The applicant submits that on 18 June 2001 Lietuvos Aidas published an apology in respect of the article of 15 June 2001. 18.  On 4 September 2001, and at the request of the applicant, the director of the Vilnius Child Development Centre informed her that the CWS had acted unethically in disclosing the applicant’s son’s medical records in the article of 15 June 2001. 19.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Journalistic Ethics, who gave his decision on 11 October 2001. In his decision the Inspector warned the editors of Lietuvos Aidas as follows:
“[The article of 15 June 2001] contained certain statements that could be assessed as breaching the honour and dignity of [the applicant]. Although the article sought to give the impression that anonymity was being maintained, in fact, the applicant was recognisable; moreover, her actions and life choices were described one-sidedly, seeking to create a negative image.” 20.  The applicant brought an action for damages against the CWS. She complained about the disclosure to journalists of information regarding her private life and the health of her minor son. The applicant claimed 50,000 Lithuanian litai (approximately 14,480 euros) as compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 21.  On 7 May 2002 the applicant asked the Vilnius City Second District Court to summon three witnesses who had recognised her from the information mentioned in the impugned article. Those witnesses were a private individual, R.V., the director of the Child Development Centre, and a child psychiatrist from the Child Development Centre. 22.  On 15 December 2003 the Vilnius City Second District Court dismissed the applicant’s action. The court found that the article of 15 June 2001 did not contain any data from which the applicant could be identified. In particular, the article had not disclosed the applicant’s first or family name, nor had it mentioned the forenames or surnames of her son, former spouse or current spouse. Nor had any other information that would allow the identification of the applicant or the other members of her family – her profession, place of work, occupation, appearance, place of residence – been mentioned in the article. It followed that the applicant had failed to prove that the CWS had deliberately disclosed information about the applicant’s private life. 23.  That decision was upheld by the Vilnius Regional Court on 18 June 2004. That court also considered that the applicant had failed to prove that the article had referred to her private life. As regards the decision of the Inspector of Journalistic Ethics of 11 October 2001, the regional court noted that the Inspector had adopted the decision following the applicant’s written complaint wherein she had indicated that the article at issue had contained information about her and her son’s private life. The court considered that it would not have been possible for the Inspector to recognise the applicant or her son from that article without having received the applicant’s complaint. The same was applicable to the letter from the Child Development Centre of 4 September 2001, given that it was merely a response to a request by the applicant. The content of that document was not such as to allow the conclusion that the employees of the Child Development Centre could have recognised the applicant or her son without prompting. 24.  On 29 November 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal by the applicant. It reiterated the findings of the lower courts that the details given in the article did not permit her clear identification. The Supreme Court also dismissed the applicant’s contention that the Inspector and the medical institution (paragraphs 18 and 19 above) had proved that she was recognisable from the text of the impugned article. In the opinion of the Supreme Court, neither the decision of the Inspector nor the answer from the medical institution was binding or had a prejudicial effect for the domestic courts. Those documents had been assessed as written evidence in a civil case, but they were not normative acts. 25.  However, in a separate ruling adopted on the same day, the Supreme Court decided to notify the CWS of its disapproval of the actions of that service’s employees. The Supreme Court noted:
 
“The fact that the claim [for breach of the applicant’s privacy] was dismissed as not proven does not lead to the conclusion that the actions of the [employees] of [the CWS], whereby they provided information to the media regarding the private relations of the former spouses and their impact on the child’s rights and interests, are wholly tolerable, reasonable and compatible with the child’s interests. ...
 
The objective of [the CWS] is to guarantee the protection of the rights of the child ... A situation in which [the CWS employees] publicly and in a relatively detailed way comment on difficulties in the circumstances and health of a particular child cannot be deemed compatible with the interests of the child. Although ... the court action was dismissed for failure to prove that ... the facts mentioned in the article might allow third persons to identify the applicant or her child, it remains obvious that the child himself, being 13 years old, understood that the article was an analysis of the relationship between his parents and described his state of health. Publicising such details cannot but arouse feelings of distress, discomfort, anxiety and dissatisfaction with his parents’ behaviour ... In the present circumstances, there was no ground warranting the publication of the information, nor was there a legitimate interest in society being informed thereof ...
 
It is to be noted that the actions of the [employees] of [the CWS] whereby specific facts regarding particular persons were disclosed to the media ... were not compatible with the interests of the child ...”