CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 novembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sA56BACAB { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 24 November 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 74435/14 Panagiotis KALFAGIANNIS and POSPERT against Greece lodged on 18 November 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the closure of Elliniki Radiofonia Tileorasi S.A., known as ERT, the Greek public broadcaster. On 11   June   2013 ERT was shut down by a co-ministerial decision and all employment and work contracts were resolved with immediate effect. According to the decision, it was imperative to create a new body which would be more cost-effective and would serve the democratic, social and cultural society’s needs as well as the need to ensure pluralism in media. On 26 July 2013, law No. 4173/2013 was published by which the “Nea Elliniki Radiofonia, Internet and Tileorasi” (NERIT) was created. The applicants, a trade union of the ERT’s employees and the President of its Board and viewer of ERT’s channels, complain that the closure of ERT violated their rights under Article 10 of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the closure of ERT interfered with the applicants’ freedom of expression within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? In particular have the applicants been prevented from receiving and imparting information to the public? If so, was that interference compatible with the requirements of Article 10 § 2?   2.     In the circumstances of the present case, has the State complied with the positive obligations arising from Article 10 in the field of audiovisual broadcasting (see Manole and Others v. Moldova , no. 13936/02, §§   100102, ECHR 2009 (extracts)? APPENDIX     Panagiotis KALFAGIANNIS who was born in 1958 and is represented by D. Perpataris     POSPERT which is represented by D. Perpataris