The applicant is a Lithuanian national who formerly owned a publishing company. In 2001, she published and distributed the ‘Lithuanian calendar 2000’ which had been ruled to be in breach of the Code on Administrative Law Offences by domestic courts for promoting ethnic hatred. An administrative warning was given to her and unsold copies of the calendar were confiscated.

The applicant made two claims in the European Court of Human Rights against the domestic courts’ decision. First, relying on Article 6 (right to fair trial), the applicant complained that her case had been examined by the first-instance court without the experts being summoned to the hearing. This claim was successful. Although experts were appointed to produce relevant reports to investigate whether the calendar contained promotion of ethnic hatred, the applicant was not given the opportunity to question the experts in order to subject their credibility to scrutiny.  It was ruled that Article 6 was violated. The applicant was awarded 2,000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 1,645 for costs and expenses.

The applicant’s second claim was that the confiscation of the calendar and the ban on its further distribution was in violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention. However, this claim was unsuccessful. The Court has considered the fact that after the re-establishment of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania in 1990 the questions of territorial integrity and national minorities had been sensitive. Whilst the applicant argued that the interference had been disproportionate, the Court noted that the calendar had caused negative reactions from official representatives of some neighbouring States, who had complained about the map denoting some of the territories of those countries as “ethnic Lithuanian lands under temporary occupation”. Thus, the Court felt that the calendar did give the Lithuanian authorities cause for serious concern, and that there was a pressing social need to take measures against the applicant.

Hence, it concluded that the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression could reasonably have been considered necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others. It therefore unanimously held that there had been no violation of Article 10.