The Lithuanian case - law after the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights on the cases of delfi AS v. Estonia and Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete & Index.hu ZRT v. Hungary

ENThe article is aimed at analysing the Lithuanian case-law after the judgments that were delivered by the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the "ECHR") on the cases of Delfi AS v. Estonia and Magyar Tartalomszolgáltatók Egyesülete & Index.hu Zrt v. Hungary (hereinafter referred to as the "MTE & Index v. Hungary"). Methodology. The theoretical methods (historical, comparative, analytical and systemic) are used in the article. The research results proved that Lithuanian courts of general jurisdiction apply de facto the criteria that are formed in the ECHR case-law on determination of websites' liability for the consequences that are caused by the third parties' unlawful comments. However, usually they do not state this fact in their judgments. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether the court actually followed the ECHR case-law or failed to behave so. Besides, when still guided by the ECHR judgments, it is an often case, when the courts cite separate assertions that confirm their position in the definite case, without, in fact, assessing the general legal and factual environment of the dispute. As such tendencies in the case-law may produce a negative impact on compatibility of the Lithuanian courts' and ECHR case-law, it is recommended to rely more often on the ECHR judgments, which meet the definite factual and legal context. It is positively assessed that the Lithuanian courts attach the essential significance not to the formal website operator's or website's status, but to the general context of comments and to the nature of comments, whereas the ECHR case-law is relied on, when analysing the issue on the liability of the authors of comments.Such tendencies in the Lithuanian case-law, which are focused on the definite entity's role in the process of publication and elimination of the unlawful comments, allow to balance maximally the interests of the parties to the dispute and meet the law interpretation direction that is formed by the ECHR. On the other hand, there is a lack of recognition of the website operator's obligation, which was singled out in the case of Delfi AS v. Estonia, to delete on their own initiative the clearly unlawful comments, though it is a significant criterion when settling the issue on the liability to be imposed on these entities, which can help to avoid the few yearslong examination of the cases on elimination of the clearly unlawful comments. In summary, the Lithuanian national case-law is inevitably influenced by the analysed ECHR decisions, and the fact that the main Lithuanian courts’ decisions on determination of websites' liability for the consequences that are caused by the third parties' unlawful comments were adopted after the judgements on the cases of Delfi AS v. Estonia and MTE & Index v. Hungary, proves it. Currently the judgments of the Lithuanian courts basically meet the ECHR jurisprudence; however, the Lithuanian courts’ decisions are rarely directly motivated by the rules adopted by the ECHR; therefore, sometimes it is difficult to evaluate the real impact of the ECHR practice. Research limits. The judgments and rulings of the Lithuanian courts of general jurisdiction, in which the rules that were formed by the ECHR on the cases of Delfi AS v. Estonia and MTE & Index v. Hungary were, could and / or had to be invoked, are being analysed in the article. Practical applicability. Firstly, the research results are useful for the law applying entities - courts, mediators, various state institutions and public organizations that directly settle the disputes, which have arisen between the Internet users about the unlawful comments.Secondly, the research results are certainly useful for the legislator so as to be able to create on their grounds the rules of law, which are maximally suitable for solving the problematic situations, which arise in the electronic space. Finally, this research is useful for business entities and all other Internet users, who: a) are seeking for defending or are defending their rights, which were violated by the third parties' comments; b) themselves are brought to account because of their own written comments or the comments of the individuals, for whose actions they are potentially liable. Originality and significance. The selected research object, except for L. Meškauskaitė's (2015) monograph1, not only in the national context, but also in the context of the private law on the European scale is innovative and has not been, in principle, studied at the scientific level. The judgment that was delivered by the ECHR on the case of Delfi AS v. Estonia deserved much attention, it was analysed separately or alongside the judgments on MTE & Index v. Hungary and / or the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter referred to as the "CJEU"), which were delivered by applying the Electronic commerce directive, by B. van der Sloot, R. Caddell, L.Brunner, H. J. McCarthy, R. Perry, N. Cox, M. E. Griffith, T. Z. Zarsky, W. Schulz, U. Gasser, E. Weinert. However, the analysis of the Lithuanian case-law from the point of view of its compliance with the mentioned ECHR judgments has not been done yet.