Media in Lithuania closed in absentia—without any warning
To the UN Human Rights Committee
c/o High Commissioner for Human Rights
OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix
1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
COMPLAINT under the First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- Applicant’s details
Aurimas Drižius, Head of UAB „Grėsmės nacionaliam saugumui” (Threats to National Security), administrator of the internet portal laisvas.info
Address for correspondence:
Moliakalnio 86, Vilnius, Lithuania
llredakcija@gmail.com, 37068738471 - Member State against which the complaint is lodged
The Republic of Lithuania (ratified the ICCPR and the First Optional Protocol) - Description of the facts
The media outlet internet portal laisvas.info, registered and operating in Lithuania as a public information provider, was shut down by a national court decision issued in absentia—without any warning, without informing the applicant about the case, and without giving it the opportunity to provide explanations or defend itself.
The decision was enforced without notifying the applicant, who had no opportunity to familiarize himself with the alleged violation or the legal basis for it. A subsequent appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania was rejected not as a procedural decision but as an institutional response in administrative proceedings, i.e., by non-judicial means.
The applicant was therefore denied any effective judicial process, and his activities relating to freedom of expression were restricted without any real possibility of defense.
Complaint about the closure of the media outlet laisvas.info „behind closed doors,” without even disclosing what violation the media outlet had committed
I am the administrator of the internet portal laisvas.info. The portal had been operating successfully for several years, writing extensively on topics related to politics, law enforcement, and corruption in the courts.
By a decision of the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court on November 2, 2024, the public information medium, the news portal laisvas.info, was shut down. (The Office of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics applied to the aforementioned court, which ordered all internet service providers operating in Lithuania to restrict access to the portal laisvas.info, making it inaccessible in Lithuania).
The applicant was not informed of this decision; I only found out when I tried to open the portal laisvas.info, but instead of the portal, zeit.lt (i.e. the defendant’s link) opened.
We have not received any warnings or notifications from the defendant that the portal would be shut down. Article 52 of the Law on Public Information. Suspension, termination, and removal of access to public information by public information producers and/or disseminators very clearly specifies the conditions under which the activities of a public information medium may be suspended: if the producer and/or disseminator of public information clearly, seriously, and gravely violates the requirements of Article 19(1) of this law after all of these conditions have been established.
Upon request to submit the aforementioned complaint of the Inspector of Journalist Ethics to the court and the court’s decision on the closure of the portal, the court refused to do so. In other words, the court even refused to submit the decision on the closure of the portal.
The law provides for the possibility for a closed public information medium to appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court regarding the unlawful closure of a media outlet.
On November 9, 2024, I filed a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania through the electronic court system, requesting that the closure of the portal laisvas.info be declared unlawful and that it be revoked.
In the complaint, I stated that laisvas.info had not committed any violations and had never been warned, and that the defendant had not given the applicant any opportunity to provide explanations.
Therefore, such arbitrariness on the part of ŽEIT is completely unlawful and constitutes persecution for criticism. ŽEIT has already closed another portal I administer, laisvaslaikrastis.lt, but the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court has already examined my complaint and ruled that ŽEIT’s actions are unlawful and the decision has been overturned. When we went to court to seek damages, ŽEIT once again closed the portal laisvaslaikrastis.lt, and this decision has also been appealed as unlawful.
Such cynical persecution of any free press and opinion is becoming a distinctive feature of ŽEIT’s activities, and it is clear that the defendant is persecuting the applicant for criticism, which is again prohibited by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania.
It remains unclear to me on what grounds the portal laisvas.info was closed; the court order to do so is not even known. Essentially, the court, if there was one, examined and upheld ŽEIT’s statement „behind closed doors,” without giving the applicant the opportunity to present his counterarguments or position to the court.
The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania refused to accept my appeal for review.
In its letter No. 01-02-3 dated January 2, 2025 (copy attached), the LVAT did not comment on the fate of my appeal, but only made an abstract statement: „We note that Article 21 of the ABTĮ provides that the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania is, inter alia, the court of appeal for cases examined by the Regional Administrative Court as the court of first instance.” In addition, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania strangely referred to another complaint of mine in a completely different case, which is not related to this case, and for some reason stated that I had not exercised my right to appeal in the other case. I repeat that my appeal was addressed to the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, which, according to the law, had to examine this appeal within 30 days. However, it did not do so even after six months had passed.
Therefore, I repeatedly appealed to both the Council of Judges and the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, and the Council of Judges explained to me in its letter No. 39P dated 2025-04 (copy attached) that my complaint had allegedly been „assessed in accordance with administrative procedure,” and the response was not submitted as a court procedural document, but as an „administrative letter in accordance with the general administrative procedure.”
The committee’s attention is drawn to the fact that in the first letter, the Council of Judges did not mention anything about the assessment of the letter by administrative procedure; this wording appeared only six months later, thus again restricting the right to appeal against the aforementioned court decisions.
An appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court cannot be examined under the general administrative procedure. It is examined only as a procedural action in court proceedings and is subject to the specific jurisdiction and procedural rules laid down in the ABTĮ.
Therefore, both the Council of Judges and the Supreme Administrative Court are well aware that my appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court should have been examined in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Law on Administrative Proceedings, and not under „administrative procedure.”
The statements by the Chair of the Council of Judges, Burbienė, that it is allegedly not true that S. Žalimienė forwarded my complaints to the Regional Administrative Court are also untrue. Documents are provided to prove that all these statements are true.
In short, this whole case just shows the sad legal situation that this „cover-up” has led to.
I’d like to remind you that the media outlet was shut down without warning and without being allowed to respond.
The complaint about its illegal closure was not even accepted for consideration, but was rejected under „administrative procedures,” which again is not provided for by law.
In short, the Lithuanian courts violated almost all legal norms. My right to an effective defense, which is protected by the Lithuanian Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights (Articles 6 and 13), and the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Articles 14 and 2), has been violated.
- Legal basis – violated articles of the ICCPR
According to the applicant, the Republic of Lithuania violated:
a) Article 19 of the ICCPR (freedom of expression)
The closure was arbitrary, without notice or opportunity to defend himself, thus violating the right to disseminate information without prior censorship or administrative pressure.
b) Article 14 of the ICCPR (right to a fair trial)
The applicant was not given the opportunity to participate in the proceedings or to be heard, and the complaint was not subsequently examined by a court.
c) Article 2(3) of the ICCPR (right to an effective remedy)
The Lithuanian authorities did not provide an effective legal remedy to challenge the decision to close the media outlet. - Domestic remedies exhausted
The applicant was not informed of the court proceedings and was therefore unable to challenge the decision at the time.
After lodging an appeal with the Supreme Administrative Court, only an administrative response was received in writing, without any actual court proceedings.
We therefore consider that all effective domestic remedies have been exhausted or were not available/effective. - Novelty of the complaint (Rule of Admissibility)
This complaint is not being examined under any other international procedure, including the European Court of Human Rights. - Requests to the Committee
The applicant requests the Committee to:
Recognize that the Republic of Lithuania has violated Articles 14, 19, and 2(3) of the ICCPR.
Recommend that Lithuania:
Recognize the applicant’s rights and restore the functioning of the media.
Ensure that such decisions are not taken without hearing the parties.
Provide clear and effective legal protection for media freedom.
Signature of the applicant
Aurimas Drižius
2025-07-23
📎 ATTACHED DOCUMENTS:
- Portal laisvas.info
Media registration documents
Copies of court or institutional decisions (if any)
LVAT letter No. 01-02-3 dated 2 January 2025, letter from the Council of Judges No. 39P dated April 2025
Administrative response from LVAT
