CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s96D82958 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 7 July 2025   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 41030/20 and 41042/20 Petros PATSEADIS against Greece and Panagiotis MAVROMARAS against Greece lodged on 10 September 2020 and 7 September 2020 respectively communicated on 20 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the criminal conviction of the applicants for (slanderous) defamation. The applicant in application no. 41042/20 complains under Articles 7 and 14 of the Convention that the domestic courts erred in their assessment as regards the notion of “third party” before whom the allegedly false information was disseminated and both applicants complain under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention that there was a violation of the principle of legal certainty due to divergent case-law of the Court of Cassation on the matter. The applicant in application no. 41030/20 further complains under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention that the appellate court rejected his independent claim ( αυτοτελής ισχυρισμός ) as unsubstantiated, though he had inserted it in the pre-printed form provided for lodging an appeal. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Both applications   1.     Has there been a breach of the principle of legal certainty in violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention due to the divergent case-law of the Court of Cassation in respect of the notion of “third party” before whom the dissemination of false information may take place (see Borg v.   Malta , no.   37537/13, §§ 107-08, 12 January 2016)?   Application no. 41030/20 2.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention on account of the rejection by the Athens Three-Member Appeal Court of the applicant’s independent claim that his act was not unlawful as unsubstantiated, in spite of the fact that he had mentioned this as reason for appeal in the pre-printed form provided by the court (see Shuli v. Greece , no.   71891/10, 13 July 2017)?   Application no. 41042/20   3.     Did the applicant comply with the time-limit of six months laid down at the time of the introduction of the present application in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in view of the fact that, according to the on-line monitoring system, decision no. 620/2019 of the Court of Cassation was delivered on 28   March 2019 and finalised on 19 February 2020, but it did not appear as available until the applicant received a copy on his own motion on 10   March   2020? 4.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression contrary to Article   10 of the Convention? In particular, has the interference been prescribed by law in view of the interpretation given by the domestic courts to the notion of “third party” before whom the dissemination of false information may take place?