Aktualios konstitucinės teisės į privatų gyvenimą apsaugos problemos.

Abstract

The relation of the right to privacy to other rights and possible means and limitations of the combination of these rights are examined in this article. Law has to harmonize opposite interests and guarantee adequate protection of these interests by legal regulation. The principle of constitutional integrity is a legal imperative to the legislator and other subjects to base their actions upon the Constitution as an integral system. Therefore, from the standpoint of legal validity, no constitutional norm can be superior to another. It is not possible for a legal regulation, where an individual is deprived of a certain constitutional right while realizing another, to be set. Exceptional attention is paid to regulation of the right to privacy and the protection of information about private life, taking into consideration a different social status of public and private persons. Since notion of a public person is not defined in the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, it is the legislator’s, who establishes the institute of a public person, duty to define the criteria according to which certain people could be attributed to the group of public people. The notion in Part 3 Article 14 of the Law on Provision of Information to the Public that people participating in public work are treated as public people is doubtful because the criterion established by law is not concrete and ambiguous. It is not clear how intensively an individual would have to act in the society to be treated as a public person. A conclusion is to be drawn that the legislator should make the criteria according to which a person is attributed to the group of public people more concrete. It is proposed to supplement the notion of the law and define that only politicians and civil servants who influence solution of important state questions are to be treated as public people. The article analyses the protection means of information about person’s private life. Special attention is paid for before the trial protection. The conclusion is that the protection of private life in before-the-trial institutions is not effective because very few applications are investigated, practically no sanctions are applied to the infringer, adopted decisions do not provide for moral satisfaction to an injured person, therefore he is obliged to sue.