6.  The first applicant, Ms Zita Paliukienė, was born in 1954. The second applicant, her husband Mr Vytautas Pauliukas, was born in 1953. They are both Lithuanian nationals and live in Kaunas. 7.  In December 1995 the first applicant bought a portion (339/631) of a plot of land at 40 Raseinių Street and 13 Telšių Street in Kaunas. In January 1996 the subplot was registered in her name in the Real Estate Registry. 8.  It appears from a letter from the authorities of 29 April 2003 to the applicants’ neighbour, Č.P., that on 3 April 2003 the Kaunas territorial planning authorities issued an administrative-law penalty notice against the first applicant on the ground that she was pursuing construction works inside a warehouse (ūkinio pastato viduje) built on the above-mentioned plot of land and was disregarding the orders of the official supervising construction works. The Government state that to their knowledge that decision has not been quashed. On 7 November 2003 the first applicant was again ordered to stop the building works as she had no permit to carry them out. 9.  On 29 September 2003 the Kaunas region territorial planning authorities issued an administrative-law penalty notice on the ground that the first applicant had unlawfully reconstructed a house situated at 40 Raseinių Street and 13 Telšių Street in Kaunas. The first applicant was fined 1,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL). On 7 November 2003 the administrative court quashed the decision, on the procedural ground that the penalty notice of 29 September had been issued in the absence of the first applicant. The case was returned to the territorial planning authorities. On 25 November 2003 the authorities issued a repeat penalty notice about the unlawfully reconstructed house. This time the applicants’ daughter was present and signed the document. She told the authorities that they could not enter the house because she had no keys to it. The first applicant was fined in the same amount, LTL 1,000. 10.  By a decision of 5 February 2004 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court quashed the decision of 25 November 2003 due to procedural flaws. The court considered that the first applicant’s offence was of a continuous nature, and that it was therefore necessary to establish the date on which the offence had become known, because a fine under the Code of Administrative Law Offences could be imposed only within six months of the date the violation became known. The territorial planning authority appealed. 11.  On 20 May 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed the appeal in part and returned the case for new examination due to procedural flaws. The court noted however that the legal qualification of the first applicant’s actions was not questioned in that case. 12.  By a decision of 1 June 2004 the Kaunas Regional Administrative Court found that the date on which the administrative violation by the first applicant had come to light was 15 May 2003. Given that the fine on the first applicant was imposed only on 25 November of that year, more than six months had passed since that violation surfaced, and therefore no administrative punishment was possible. The case was discontinued. 13.  In January 2009 the first applicant asked the Kaunas territorial planning authority to approve the house in question, built on the plot of land belonging to both applicants, as fit for habitation. The authorities informed her, however, that there were certain deficiencies in respect of the arbitrarily reconstructed house. Moreover, after those deficiencies had been eliminated the second applicant was also obliged to obtain approval in relation to the building from their neighbour Č.P. 14.  The applicants’ neighbour Č.P. had sued the second applicant in civil proceedings for pecuniary damage, on the ground that on 13 October 2002 the second applicant had arbitrarily and unlawfully demolished Č.P.’s fence. In that connection the municipal authorities had earlier found the second applicant guilty of a violation of administrative law. Their decision was upheld by administrative courts at two levels of jurisdiction. By a decision of 28 September 2003 the Kaunas City District Court allowed Č.P.’s civil claim in full. 15.  On 4 April 2003 the territorial planning authorities gave the first applicant an administrative warning, because she had unlawfully built a wall on State land and had refused to demolish it. This conclusion was confirmed by the Kaunas City District Court on 24 April 2003. 16. Further, on 12 July 2003 the applicants’ neighbours Č.P., P.Ž., J.D. and L.B. addressed a written complaint to them. The neighbours stated that for the last eight years the applicants had been ignoring the law, had lied, and had used corrupt connections when managing their property. They also submitted that the second applicant had used his position as a Kaunas city elder for his personal proprietary interests, instead of trying to keep an untarnished reputation. The neighbours gave a detailed list of the applicants’ misdemeanours as confirmed by the authorities’ decisions, where it had been mentioned that the applicants’ house was too large, and that they had unlawfully occupied certain parts of a plot of land belonging to neighbours J.D. and L.B., and had also occupied State land. The neighbours expressed the wish, however, that in future all the neighbours would be able to live in peace, and that the applicants would abide by the law. The Government state that later on a copy of this note was given to a journalist. 17.  On 27 February 2004 the first applicant was informed by the authorities that some parts of her house were outside the boundaries of the plot of land at 40 Raseinių Street and 13 Telšių Street in Kaunas and were on land belonging to the State. She was reminded that arbitrary occupation and use of State land entailed administrative liability. On 9 March 2004 a penalty notice for an administrative offence was issued to the first applicant for arbitrary occupation of State land. However, by a ruling of 14 April 2004 the court found that the boundaries between the applicants’ land and the State land had been established only after those parts of the house had been built, and that therefore the first applicant could not be held liable for the offence. 18.  In 2004 the first applicant brought court proceedings against her neighbour Č.P., claiming that in 1994 he had built a brick wall between her plot of land and his, and that that wall encroached on her plot by 1.16 square metres and thus breached her property rights. Her civil claim was dismissed as unfounded by both the first-instance and the appellate courts. On 2 November 2005 the Supreme Court terminated the proceedings, upholding the lower courts’ conclusions. 19.  On 11 November 2003 the daily newspaper Respublika published an article covering the applicants’ boundary disputes with Č.P. and the other neighbours. The article mentioned that that year the second applicant had been elected elder of Kaunas city centre (Kauno miesto centro seniūnas). The article alleged that the applicants were illegally building on their plot of land and had occupied part of the land belonging to the other owners and the State. The relevant passages of the article stated as follows:
“The elder was occupying the neighbours’ land [Seniūnas užėmė kaimynų žemę];
Elected Kaunas city centre elder this year, Vytautas Pauliukas has been building illegally on his plot after occupying land belonging to his neighbours and the State, and is not complying with prohibitions by various institutions on rebuilding the derelict dwelling house situated in his yard [Šiemet Kauno miesto Centro seniūnu išrinktas Vytautas Pauliukas, pažeisdamas įstatymus, savo sklype vykdo savavališkas statybas, yra užėmęs valstybinę ir kaimynams priklausančią žemę, nepaiso įvairių institucijų draudimo rekonstruoti apleistą gyvenamąjį namą, stovintį kieme];
When going through the process of acquiring the land in 1995, [Mr and Mrs] Pauliukai enlarged their plot at the expense of the neighbours and the State – the entrance to L.B.’s yard was narrowed and the roof of [the applicants’] house overhung P.Ž.’s outhouse [1995 metais tvarkydami žemės įgijimo dokumentus, Pauliukai pasididino teritoriją kaimynų ir valstybinės žemės sąskaita – susiaurėjo L.B. įvažiavimas į kiemą, o virš nedidelio P.Ž. namuko pakibo Pauliukų namo stogas];
The residential dwelling section of the city’s housing department ordered Pauliukai [reference to both applicants] either to submit a reconstruction project or to demolish the building by 2 May. However, Pauliukai did not comply with the order, and continued to build a new house inside the old one without permission [Miesto ūkio departamento būsto skyrius įpareigojo Pauliukus iki gegužės 2-osios parengti statinio kapitalinio remonto projektą arba jį nugriauti. Deja, Pauliukai nurodymo nepaisė ir senojo pastato viduje, neturėdami tam leidimų, ėmė statyti naują namą]; 20.  After the article was published, on 1 December 2003 the second applicant asked the newspaper to correct the part of the article he considered to be erroneous and damaging to his reputation as a Kaunas city centre elder. He was also dissatisfied at being linked to the Inkaras company, owned by the EBSW group of companies, which was at that time under criminal investigation for bringing Inkaras to insolvency. As the newspaper did not comply with this request, he then brought a claim in the civil courts, seeking rectification of the article and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The third party in the civil proceedings, the applicants’ neighbour Č.P., told the court that the article did not contain any untruths, and suggested that the civil claim be dismissed. 21.  On 3 December 2004 the Vilnius City Second District Court dismissed the second applicant’s claim. The court took into account that when preparing the publication the journalist had talked to the applicants’ neighbours, examined documents, telephoned the second applicant and had regard to his opinion. The court pointed out that, in accordance with Article 2.24 § 5 of the Civil Code, the press could be held liable for defamation if it knew that information it published did not correspond to reality, that is if it acted in bad faith. However, in some circumstances the media had a right to trust certain sources of information (for example, an official police report or a document by other municipal or State authorities). In such cases the media were exempt from the obligation to verify the accuracy of that information. On this point the court noted that the applicants’ neighbours had repeatedly addressed complaints to State and municipal institutions about the applicants’ housing projects. Those complaints had been investigated by the authorities and official replies had been received. For the court, the case file showed that both of the applicants had been held liable under administrative law for rebuilding the house without a permit and for unlawfully occupying State land. Conversely, the applicants’ neighbours had been honest when they addressed the State and municipal institutions, because, as the replies from those institutions indicated, their accusations in respect of the applicants had proved to be true. These were precisely those written replies that were given to the journalist when she was preparing the publication. Given that they were official documents, the journalist had a right to trust their content. 22.  The district court also noted that the first applicant had been named in the article as the owner of the plot of land in question. Given that no evidence had been submitted to the court to the effect that the property had been divided between the two applicants, the presumption that the plot of land was joint property of the two applicants as spouses was a valid one. This explained why the article mentioned not only the first applicant but also the second applicant. It was also noteworthy that in the civil court the second applicant had acknowledged that the authorities had ordered a halt to construction on the plot of land belonging to his wife, but argued that they had obeyed the order. However, from the letter of 29 April 2003 (see paragraph 8 above) it was clear that the reference in the article to administrative sanction was correct. As regards the second applicant’s prior work at Inkaras, he himself admitted that he had worked at the Inkaras factory as head of a production unit (cecho viršininkas). Accordingly, the second applicant had failed to prove that his dignity had been insulted because of the published reference to his position at Inkaras. 23.  The Vilnius City Second District Court next observed that defamation meant publication of material which did not correspond to reality and which in the light of law and moral and customary norms damaged a person’s honour, dignity or reputation in society. It indicated further that the insulting nature of the material published did not have to be proven if the words or combination of words used were manifestly insulting. The court concluded that the publication at issue did not contain such language. Next, the court noted that in defamation cases the court had to examine the construction of the sentence as well as the whole context of the publication in order to find out the exact meaning of the word or combination of words. The court concluded that the second applicant had indicated only separate sentences but had not had regard to the whole content of the publication. 24.  By a ruling of 13 April 2005, the Vilnius Regional Court allowed the second applicant’s claim in part and ordered the daily to print a rectification. The appellate court considered that the lower court had erred as regards the factual circumstances of the case. Specifically, the documents from the Real Estate Registry showed that the owner of the house and of the plot of land was the first applicant. Consequently, the published material did not correspond to reality, because the evidence of inappropriate use of the property had been linked to the first applicant but not to the second. Similarly, as regards the second applicant’s former post at Inkaras, which belonged to the EBSW group, that statement was misleading, because the second applicant had in fact worked as a director at a [subsidiary] enterprise, Inkaro padai, which he did not deny. The appellate court thus concluded that naming the second applicant separately and together with the first applicant as persons who had broken the law, and linking those breaches of the law to the first applicant’s employment, as well as stating that in the past the second applicant had had links to the EBSW group, was damaging to his authority as a public figure. The court considered that the journalist had deliberately ignored her obligation to provide information that was fair, accurate and impartial, in breach of Article 3 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public. 25.  On 2 November 2005 the Supreme Court took a final decision in the case. The court indicated that Article 25 of the Lithuanian Constitution guaranteed the right to freedom of expression. Nevertheless, that right was not an absolute one, and had to be exercised taking into account the rights of others as well as the interests of society. Furthermore, Articles 4 and 19 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public obliged the media to present information correctly, without bias and in compliance with the requirements of journalistic ethics. 26.  As regards the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court noted that the publication at issue described a situation in which there was conflict among four co-owners of the plot of land over the boundaries of that plot, the applicants’ illegal construction and their unlawful occupation of the neighbours’ and State land. It was clear from the content of the applicants’ neighbours’ complaints to various institutions and the replies they had received that those neighbours were trying to protect their rights which had been breached, and also to make sure that the second applicant, who was a public figure, abided by the law. The neighbours, acting in good faith, gave copies of those complaints and replies to the journalist, who in turn wrote an article on the subject. The first-instance court was correct to find that the official replies from municipal and State institutions, which referred to violations of law committed by both applicants in that they had reconstructed the house without a permit and had also occupied State-owned land and demolished part of a neighbour’s wall, among others, were a sufficient basis for publication of information about a public figure, the second applicant, who had been elected Kaunas city centre elder. 27.  The Supreme Court also emphasised that the mere fact that the second applicant was not mentioned in the replies from the municipal authorities did not confirm that the violations could not be linked to him. Despite the fact that the plot of land and the house where both applicants lived were registered in the first applicant’s name, that property had been acquired during their marriage. Accordingly, this was their joint property which they had equal rights to manage and use, in accordance with Article 21 of the Code of Marriage and Family. Moreover, in the event that a co-owner of the property of a public figure exercised their co-ownership rights inappropriately, the public figure (in this case the second applicant) had a duty to control his co-owner’s actions and to prevent violations of the law, as in this case. For the Supreme Court, if a co-owner exercising the joint property rights of both spouses violated the pecuniary and non-pecuniary rights of other persons, the other co-owner incurred liability as well, the more so if that other co-owner was a public figure. Having regard to the above arguments, the Supreme Court concluded that the appellate court had wrongly interpreted Article 3 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public and erred in finding that the journalist had deliberately violated that law by breaching her responsibility to present correct, precise and impartial information. The Supreme Court concluded that those errors made the decision of the appellate court invalid. The decision of the first-instance court was upheld.