CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 5 juin 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   410 05.06.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT I AVGI PUBLISHING AND PRESS AGENCY S.A. & KARIS v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of I Avgi Publishing and Press Agency S.A. & Karis v. Greece (application no. 15909/06).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 60,000   euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The first applicant, I Avgi Publishing and Press Agency S.A., is a limited company which owns the national daily newspaper I Avgi . Its registered office is in Athens. The second applicant, Konstantinos Karis, a Greek national who was born in 1954 and lives in Athens, is the paper’s editor.   The case concerns the applicants’ complaints about a judgment finding them liable for defamation on account of the publication, in June 2000, of an article containing references to K.V., a journalist who wrote political books and presented a political programme on local television. K.V. was also actively engaged in politics and was elected to parliament in 2007 on the list of the Orthodox Popular Alert Party, whose aim was to protect and promote “Greco-Christian ideals”.   The article in question concerned the organisation of gatherings by far-right associations in Salonika, in protest against a decision of the Data Protection Authority. In that decision the Authority had, among other things, considered that the indication of a person’s religion on his or her identity card was contrary to the law providing for protection of the individual in the processing of personal data. At the time, the Greek Orthodox Church had been strongly opposed to the decision, and this had given rise to numerous debates and coverage in the Greek media.   In that article K.V., who was one of the organisers of the gatherings, was among other things described as a “notorious crazy nationalist”.   In July 2000 K.V. sued the applicants for defamation. The Athens Court of First Instance dismissed his suit in October 2001, finding that the article in question contained no defamatory remarks.   In May 2003 the Salonika Court of Appeal overturned that judgment, finding that the expression “notorious crazy nationalist” could be characterised as defamatory. It considered that in using that expression the sole objective of the article’s author had been to present K.V. as mentally and psychologically unstable and, therefore, lacking in status and authority. The appellate judgment was upheld by the Court of Cassation in October 2005.   Consequently, the applicants were ordered jointly and severally to pay K.V. EUR 58,000 in damages and EUR 4,650 in court costs.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18 April 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatian), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicants, relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention, complained about the judgment in which they were found liable for defamation.   Decision of the Court   Article 10   The Court declared once again that the press played the role of “watchdog” in a democratic society and emphasised that journalistic freedom also covered possible recourse to a degree of exaggeration, or even provocation.   It considered that the judgment against the applicants constituted interference with their right to freedom of expression. That interference had been prescribed by Greek law and pursued a legitimate purpose, namely the protection of K.V.’s reputation. It remained to be determined whether that interference was “necessary in a democratic society”.   The Court considered that the term “notorious crazy nationalist” was a value judgment not susceptible of proof. However, the offending expression was not without factual basis, since K.V. had, both in his television programme and in his books, advocated a conservative political philosophy and had expressed nationalistic ideas, glorifying the history of the Greek nation and passionately defending his ideals. Moreover, in an edition of the magazine of which he was editor, K.V. had described himself as a nationalist.   The Court was not persuaded by the grounds given by the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation. In its view, the offending expression amounted to harsh criticism of one of the organisers of a political gathering to which the newspaper concerned was opposed, rather than reflecting an intention to insult the complainant or defame him gratuitously. The domestic courts, however, had failed to make a distinction between “facts” and “value judgments” but had simply sought to ascertain whether the term used in the article in question had been likely to impugn the complainant’s character and reputation.   Moreover, observing that the complainant was a well-known local figure in Salonika and that he had been actively engaged in politics at the relevant time, the Court noted that he could not be regarded as an “ordinary private individual” but rather as a newsworthy public figure. The offending remarks had thus been made in the context of a debate of great public interest.   Furthermore, the Court considered that the role of the domestic courts in defamation proceedings did not consist in indicating to a journalist the terms and descriptions beyond which he could not stray when exercising, in the course of his professional activity, his right to engage in criticism, even if bitter. Domestic courts were required rather to examine whether the context of the case, the interest of the public and the intention of the journalist justified the possible recourse to a degree of provocation or exaggeration.   Lastly, the Court noted that the Greek courts had ordered the applicants to pay K.V., in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained, the sum of EUR 58,000, which was in itself disproportionate to the aim pursued.   In these circumstances, the Court considered that the domestic authorities had not adduced relevant and sufficient grounds to justify the judgment against the applicants and that the judgment did not meet a “pressing social need”. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 10.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.