5.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in the village of Kraštų, Pasvalys district. 6.  On 31 January 2001 the biggest Lithuanian daily newspaper, Lietuvos Rytas, published a front page article entitled “Pasvalys villages paralysed by the fear of death: residents of a remote Lithuanian area shackled by the AIDS threat” (Pasvalio kaimus paralyžavo mirties baimė: nuošalios Lietuvos vietovės gyventojai atsidūrė AIDS grėsmės gniaužtuose). The following statements of particular concern to the applicant were made in the article:
“Notoriously promiscuous thirty-year old Gitana Biriuk is already sick with this fatal disease ...
An HIV-positive person lives in a village in Pajiešmenys area. This [is] G. Biriuk, an unmarried mother of two children ... 7.  The applicant instituted proceedings in the Vilnius City Third District Court, suing the newspaper for non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 50,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, or about 14,460 euro (EUR)) for a breach of her right to privacy. She referred, inter alia, to Article 8 of the Convention. 8.  On 15 April 2002 the court ruled in favour of the applicant. The court found that the information about the applicant’s private life had been collected and published without her consent. The data about her private life did not correspond to any legitimate public interest. The article had been published on the front page of the newspaper as the sensation of the day, with the aim of increasing sales. The Vilnius City Third District Court noted that publication had humiliated her and caused her significant non-pecuniary damage. The court concluded that, by printing the article and doing so in a humiliating manner, the newspaper had deliberately sought the negative consequences or had intentionally allowed for such consequences. Taking into account the above considerations, the court applied Article 54 § 1 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public, multiplied the statutory sum of LTL 10,000 (about EUR 2,896) by three, and awarded the applicant LTL 30,000 (about EUR 8,676) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. 9.  The applicant appealed to the Vilnius Regional Court, requesting the maximum award under Article 54 § 1 of the said Law, namely LTL 50,000. On 17 June 2002 the appellate court reduced the award to LTL 10,000 (about EUR 2,892). It reasoned that the applicant had not proved that the newspaper had published the information about her intentionally and that the first-instance court had had no grounds to triple the statutory sum. 10.  On 15 January 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision. It stated that an award in excess of LTL 10,000 under Article 54 § 1 of the Law on the Provision of Information to the Public could only be granted if it had been established that the information had been published intentionally. The court agreed with the reasoning of the appellate court that, for a breach of privacy, intent was to be regarded as proven if the facts about someone’s private life were disseminated with the purpose of degrading that person (siekant jį sumenkinti). The Supreme Court held, inter alia, as follows:
“It is to be stressed that the problem of the interaction between persons who are sick with AIDS and the others is relevant and should be discussed. The relations of the sick with the persons who live nearby are based on the knowledge about the disease we have today and on the understanding of the related dangers. The nature of the disease and the known data about it reasonably raise concern on the part of the people who live in close proximity, to many of whom this question becomes pertinent not from curiosity, but from concern for their personal safety. These are significant arguments, which demonstrate great concern in society, and which attest to the relevance of the question. It should be taken into account that persons who live in proximity [to the applicant] have expressed concern for their safety, which is endangered by the [applicant’s] behaviour, which does not always meet moral standards. In such circumstances the publication of data which breaches a [person’s] privacy, even though such publication violates the [legal] norms which protect privacy, cannot be regarded as an end in itself or intentional, which would be a basis for the application of much stricter liability. [Therefore] the amount of LTL 10,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary damage is considered sufficient”. 11.  Relying on the foregoing considerations, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.