CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Published on 4 December 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 584/19 Antonios KOUMIOTIS against Greece lodged on 19 December 2018 communicated on 16 November 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings against the applicant, owner and manager of a blogspot page under the name “voliotaki”. The applicant, in a series of posts, criticised Mr G.S., President of the Chamber of Commerce of Magnisia Prefecture and was convicted to a prison sentence of 13 months for slanderous defamation. The applicant complains under Article 10 that his criminal conviction amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of expression. He also complains that the authorities obtained his IP address and his identity arbitrarily, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s criminal conviction for slanderous defamation?   2.     Was the alleged interference with the applicant’s right to privacy of electronic communication in accordance with the law applicable at the material time and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, on the basis of which legislation was the applicant’s identity disclosed in connection with his IP address? Did the applicable legislation on the basis of which the police obtained the data disclosing his identity and on the basis of which the relevant internet service provider stored and disclosed the traffic and personal data of its subscriber meet the requirement of lawfulness within the meaning of Article 8 § 2? Was it sufficiently foreseeable and compatible with the rule of law? Did the law contain adequate and effective safeguards against abuse (see Benedik v. Slovenia , no.   62357/14, §§ 120-134, 24 April 2018)?