Article 41 - Right to good administration
Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial
Key facts of the case:
The case originated in the complaint filed by Baltic Media Alliance LTD against the Radio and Television Commission of Lithuania regarding the latter’s decision to restrict broadcasting of the television programme ‚NTV Mir Lithuania‘ by obliging local broadcasters to make the programme available only as part of a package of programmes aired for an additional fee. The complainant argued that the Commission failed to notify the complainant of the alleged violations, did not invite the complainant to the Commission‘s hearing and took the decision to restrict the broadcasting of the programme without the complainant being able to present its arguments and defend its rights and material interests. Thus, according to the complainant, the Commission failed to comply with the procedure set out in Article 3 Part 2 of Directive 2010/13/EU. The complainant, which is registered in the United Kingdom, is the producer and the main broadcaster of the programme, which is retransmitted by other broadcasters in Lithuania, and therefore had material interests in the decision and the right to be heard in the proceedings.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The court raised two key legal questions: a) whether the complainant had a material legal interest in the decision of the respondent; b) whether the complainant’s right to be heard had been violated.
Outcome of the case:
The court concluded that taking into account the status of the complainant as an audiovisual services provider (TV broadcaster) and the legal consequences imposed by the Commission’s decision, it was evident, that the rights of the complainant which delivers the ‚NTV Mir Lithuania‘ programme to local broadcasters in Lithuania, have been affected, therefore the complainant had a material legal interest to appeal the decision by the Commission.
The court also concluded that according to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Article 47 of the Charter, establishing the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial, encompasses the right to be heard, which, when implementing an administrative procedure, ensures the possibility for any person to express his/her opinion in an appropriate and effective manner before the decision, which can have a negative effect on his/her interests, is taken. The court concluded that in this case the complainant’s right to an effective remedy and the right to be heard have been infringed, and annulled the decision of the Commission.
12) The court, relying on the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter – the Charter), which came into force on 1 December 2009, Article 41, which regulates the righ to be heard, [and after] overviewing the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania and clarifications of the CJEU with regards to the right to be heard, inter alia, noted that, on the one hand, the right to be heard means to ensure, that a person has appropriate, real and effective opportunity to provide opinion [and] information before the decision is taken, despite [the fact] whether the said requirement is provided for by laws; on the other hand, this allows the administration to investigate the material of the case in such a way, that it would be able to reach the decision knowing all the circumstances of the case, so that the interested person when needed would be able to appropriately implement his/her right to file a complaint, ensure for himself/herself a better defence. Effective right of the interested person to present arguments and evidence must be implemented before the public administration subject issues an administrative act, and he/she must be provided with sufficient time to prepare presentation of arguments and evidence.
(...)
32) Court of Justice of the European Union, when clarifying Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter – the Charter) (right to an effective remedy and right to a fair trial), notes that an inalienable part of the right to effective remedy is the right to be heard, with which it ensured, whilst implementing an administrative procedure, the possibility for any person to express his/her opinion in an appropriate and effective manner before the decision that might negatively affect his/her interests is taken (see for example, CJEU 22 November 2012 judgment M. v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland and Attorney General, C-277/11, EU:C:2012:744, para 87, 5 November 2014. judgment Mukarubega v Préfet de police and Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis, C-166/13, EU:C:2014: 2336, para 46). According to the jurisprudence of the CJEU, the right to be heard must be ensured even if such requirement is not formally established in the laws. CJEU has concluded that the right to be heard also means that an administration, after careful and impartial examination of all significant information of the case, must carefully examine the submissions of the interested person (see for example, 22 November 2012 judgment M. C-277/11, EU:C:2012:744, paras. 85,86, 87, 88 and the jurisprudence specified therein). With this right, he/she is provided with an opportunity to correct an error or submit such information relating to his or her personal circumstances as will argue in favour of the adoption or non-adoption of the decision, or in favour of its having a specific content (see for example, 11 December 2014 judgment Boudjlida, C-249/13, EU:C:2014:2431, para. 37). The right to be heard before the adoption of a return decision must allow the competent national authority to investigate the matter in such a way as be able to adopt a decision with full knowledge of the facts and to state reasons for that decision adequately, so that, where appropriate, the person concerned can duly exercise his right to bring legal proceedings (for an analogy please see 11 December 2014 judgment Boudjlida, C-249/13, EU:C:2014:2431, para. 59).
33) According to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the principle of ensuring the right to effective remedy is a general principle of the Union law, and the right to be heard in any proceedings is part of this principle (see for example, 18 December 2008 judgment Sopropé, C-349/07, EU:C:2008:746, paras. 33 ir 36; 22 November 2012 judgement M., C-277/11, EU:C:2012:744, paras. 81 and 82; 3 July 2014 judgment Kamino International Logistics, C-129/13, EU:C:2014:2041, para. 28).
12. Teismas, vadovaudamasis Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijos (toliau – ir Chartija), kuri įsigaliojo 2009 m. gruodžio 1 d., 41 straipsnio nuostata, reglamentuojančia teisę būti išklausytam, apžvelgęs Lietuvos vyriausiojo administracinio teismo ir ESTT išaiškinimus teisės būti išklausytam aspektu, be kita ko, pažymėjo, kad, viena vertus, teisė išklausyti reiškia užtikrinti, kad asmuo turėtų deramą, realią, veiksmingą nuomonės, informacijos pateikimo galimybę iki sprendimo priėmimo, nepaisant to, ar minimas reikalavimas teisės aktuose numatytas ar ne, kita vertus, tai administracijai leidžia ištirti bylos medžiagą taip, kad priimtų sprendimą žinodama visas bylos aplinkybes, jog suinteresuotasis asmuo prireikus galėtų tinkamai įgyvendinti savo teisę pateikti skundą, užtikrinti geresnę savo gynybą. Veiksminga suinteresuoto asmens teisė teikti argumentus ir įrodymus turi būti įgyvendinama prieš viešojo administravimo subjektui priimant administracinį aktą, ir jam turi būti suteikta pakankamai laiko pasirengti pateikti argumentus ar įrodymus.
32. Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismas, pasisakydamas dėl Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijos (toliau – ir Chartija) 47 straipsnio (teisė į veiksmingą teisinę gynybą ir teisingą bylos nagrinėjimą), pažymi, kad teisės į gynybą užtikrinimo neatsiejama dalis yra teisė būti išklausytam, kuria, vykdant administracinę procedūrą, bet kuriam asmeniui užtikrinama galimybė tinkamai ir veiksmingai pareikšti nuomonę iki sprendimo, galinčio neigiamai paveikti jo interesus, priėmimo (žr., pvz., ESTT 2012 m. lapkričio 22 d. sprendimo M. prieš Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Ireland ir Attorney General, C-277/11, EU:C:2012:744, 87 p., 2014 m. lapkričio 5 d. sprendimo Mukarubega prieš Préfet de police ir Préfet de la Seine-Saint-Denis, C-166/13, EU:C:2014: 2336, 46 p.). Pagal ESTT jurisprudenciją teisės būti išklausytam turi būti paisoma, net jei taikytinuose teisės aktuose tokio formalumo aiškiai nenumatyta. ESTT yra konstatavęs, kad teisė būti išklausytam taip pat reiškia, kad administracija, rūpestingai ir nešališkai išnagrinėjusi visą aptariamam atvejui reikšmingą informaciją, turi atidžiai susipažinti su suinteresuotojo asmens pateiktomis pastabomis (žr., pvz., 2012 m. lapkričio 22 d. sprendimo M., C-277/11, EU:C:2012:744, 85,86, 87, 88 punktus ir jame nurodytą jurisprudenciją). Šia teise jam, be kita ko, suteikiama galimybė ištaisyti klaidą ar pateikti su asmenine situacija susijusios informacijos, palankios tam, kad sprendimas būtų arba nebūtų priimtas, ir vienokiam ar kitokiam jo turiniui (žr., pvz., 2014 m. gruodžio 11 d. sprendimo Boudjlida, C-249/13, EU:C:2014:2431, 37 p.). Ši teisė turi leisti administracijai ištirti bylos medžiagą taip, kad ji priimtų sprendimą žinodama visas bylos aplinkybes, ir jį tinkamai pagrįsti, kad suinteresuotasis asmuo prireikus galėtų tinkamai įgyvendinti savo teisę pateikti skundą (pagal analogiją žr. 2014 m. gruodžio 11 d. sprendimo Boudjlida, C-249/13, EU:C:2014:2431, 59 p.).
33. Pagal Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo praktiką, teisės į gynybą užtikrinimo principas yra bendrasis Sąjungos teisės principas, o teisė būti išklausytam per bet kokią procedūrą yra jo sudedamoji dalis (žr., pvz., 2008 m. gruodžio 18 d. sprendimo Sopropé, C-349/07, EU:C:2008:746, 33 ir 36 p.; 2012 m. lapkričio 22 d. sprendimo M., C-277/11, EU:C:2012:744, 81 ir 82 p.; 2014 m. liepos 3 d. sprendimo Kamino International Logistics, C-129/13, EU:C:2014:2041, 28 p.).
