Published on 27 October 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 8617/24
V.Š. against Lithuania
lodged on 12 March 2024
communicated on 8 October 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the right to be forgotten.
The applicant is a graduate of the Law University of Lithuania, he has a bachelor’s degree in law.
In 2012 the applicant was convicted of abuse of office as he being a State officer – serving as a senior investigator at the police – used paid sexual services by a third party, and allowed that third party to use narcotic substances on official premises. The courts held that by his actions the applicant had incurred major damage to the State’s interests. The applicant was barred from employment in the civil service for a period of two years and six months.
In 2012 and 2013, the applicant’s criminal case was reported by various online media outlets.
Noting that those publications dated back over a decade, remained easily accessible online, and claiming that they negatively impacted the applicant’s present and future private life – as well as his right to be forgotten – in April 2022 he contacted several news outlets, requesting the removal or anonymisation of the articles. The applicant underscored that he did not hold a public office. The applicant states that several news websites complied, while one of them – www.15min.lt, which contained ten publications about the applicant – refused, arguing that the information was lawfully published and served a legitimate and justified public interest. The applicant applied to the court, initially requesting that the news website remove articles about his criminal case, and later amended his request to seek anonymization by removing his full name and photographs.
On 3 February 2023, the Vilnius District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim and stated that the applicant caused serious harm to State interests through criminal actions, making it legitimate for the public to know about the person, the harm, and its circumstances – regardless of time passed or the applicant’s current status. The public’s right to be informed outweighed the applicant’s right to his private life protection. The topic of abuse of office by a police investigator remained relevant and might be discussed presently and in the future. Continued publication was proportionate and justified, and the applicant did not prove that the information severely harmed his private life.
On 16 May 2023, the Vilnius Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and stated that his personal data and private life details were published lawfully, thus the expiration of the criminal record did not justify altering accurate and truthful information, especially since media outlets were not required to do so. Accurate published information should remain accessible as archival information since the public retained a legitimate interest in such information even after a decade from its publishing.
On 16 November 2023 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. The applicant’s right to be forgotten had not been violated, as legal grounds justified its limitation and referred to the case Hurbain v. Belgium [GC], no. 57292/16, 4 July 2023. The public’s right to know and the media’s duty to inform outweighed the applicant’s right to private life, particularly as he had not reported any difficulties in employment, business, or personal life. Instead, he emphasised that he no longer was a public figure and that his criminal record had expired, thereby eliminating the legal basis for publishing his personal data without consent. The fact that more than ten years had passed, and the applicant’s criminal record had expired did not override the public interest, since the information remained relevant to the public and might continue to spark discussion, even after that period of time had passed. Continued publication remained proportionate.
The applicant had to compensate the news outlet in the amount of 11,778 euros for the legal expenses incurred in the civil proceedings.
The applicant complains that an unjustified and disproportionate priority was given to freedom of the press and the integrity of press archives, while his right to respect for his private life – including the right to be forgotten and the right to control the use of one’s image – was not protected. The applicant submits that, without providing convincing reasons, the Supreme Court reached a completely opposite conclusion to that reached by the Court in Hurbain v. Belgium ([GC], no. 57292/16, 4 July 2023). The applicant points out that he requested only the anonymisation of his first and last name and the removal of his photographs. The public therefore remained free to discuss the topics presented in the publications without referring to the applicant’s name or surname, and without using his photographs. The applicant asserts that, due to the prolonged public exposure of his criminal case, his reputation was significantly tarnished, which forced him to work in low-skilled jobs for a long period, even though he has university legal education. As a result, the applicant experienced significant discomfort when interacting with others, as anyone who knows his name and surname could easily, freely, and without much effort find all ten publications about a crime he had committed more than a decade ago. The applicant also emphasises that the information published about him also concerns a particularly sensitive aspect of his private life – his sexual life, and that therefore the continued disclosure of such information is incompatible with the right to respect for private life. The applicant relies on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the publications about the applicant concerning his conviction affect the applicant’s private life to a very significant degree, so as to make Article 8 of the Convention applicable (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, §§ 110-14, 25 September 2018)?
2. Did the refusal by the domestic courts to order the anonymisation of the articles and removal of the applicant’s pictures constitute a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Hurbain v. Belgium [GC], no. 57292/16, §§ 249-54, 4 July 2023)?