CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 novembre 2018

.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 }   Communicated on 5 November 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 10224/14 Efthymios TSAKNAKIS against Greece lodged on 22 January 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the right to freedom of expression. The applicant, journalist, editor and owner of a local newspaper, was found liable in civil defamation proceedings after he had written an article in which he mentioned that it was probable that N.T. would be a candidate deputy in the future national elections given that “according to information, he will be once more convinced against a political reward to complete the puzzle of the ballot” of a certain political party. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES Having regard to the the finding of the applicant’s liability in civil defamation proceedings on account of the passage relating to N.T., a person involved in politics, has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Kapsis and Danikas v. Greece , no. 52137/12, 19   January 2017)? In particular, can it be said that the domestic courts respected the distinction between statements of facts and value judgments in the course of examination of the claims brought by N.T.? Did the domestic courts consider the context in which the impugned statements had been made? Lastly, did they consider whether the amount of award was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case?