CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 2025

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 10 November 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 7775/24 Plousia MISAILIDI against Greece lodged on 11 March 2024 communicated on 20 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s obligation to pay 10 000 euros (EUR) in compensation to S.M.N. for slanderous statements. The applicant is a university professor, who expressed negative views on the professional qualifications and behaviour οf another professor of her department during the latter’s evaluation on 30 June 2010. In 2017, the Ioannina Court of First Instance ruled that the applicant’s assessment had gone beyond what was necessary and amounted to slanderous statements. In 2021, the Ioannina Court of Appeals upheld that decision, ruling that the applicant’s statements portrayed S.M.N. as “an academic lacking ethics, competence and basic qualifications for the position of university professor” and “who has repeatedly committed plagiarism”. On 19 November 2021 the applicant introduced an appeal on points of law arguing that her assessment mainly included value judgments, accompanied with evidence as regards the manner S.M.N. used her academic sources, to support and justify her negative assessment. On 13 November 2023 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law. In its reasoning, it placed particular emphasis on the absence of any criminal or disciplinary proceedings against S.M.N. for plagiarism and on the fact that S.M.N. was in the end promoted, despite the applicant’s allegations. Under Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the domestic civil courts’ decision to award compensation and interests to S.M.N. for slanderous statements. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention, on account of her obligation to pay compensation with interest to S.M.N. for her statements during the latter’s evaluation (see mutatis mutandis Matalas v.   Greece , no.   1864/18, §§ 42-47, 53-54, 57-58, 25 March 2021; Dimitriou v.   Greece , no.   62639/12, §§   45 ‑ 48, 11 March 2021; Kapsis and Danikas v.   Greece , no.   52137/12, §§   32-35, 19 January 2017; Koutsoliontos and Pantazis v.   Greece , nos.   54608/09 and 54590/09, §§ 35-41, 22   September 2015)?