REPORTS
European Court of Human Rights finds Greece to be in violation of Article 10 of the ECHR in the case of Kitsos v. Greece
Freedom of expression, as enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter the ECHR), is one of the fundamental foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for the progress and development of every human being. States must not only refrain from interfering with this right but must also take measures to protect it effectively. Restrictions on the freedom of expression are provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the ECHR, which must be interpreted to the letter, and the need for any restrictions convincingly demonstrated. In particular, any intervention of a public authority in the right to expression must be provided for by law, be necessary for a democratic society and must pursue one of the purposes referred to in paragraph 2. The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter ECtHR) examines this intervention and decides whether it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and whether the grounds relied on by national authorities to justify it are pertinent and sufficient. Failure to satisfy these conditions results in a violation of Article 10.
On September 2, 2022, the decision of the ECtHR in the case of Kitsos v. Greece (appeal no. 21793/14) was published, concluding that Greece had violated Article 10 of the ECHR in this case. See the decision as posted in the HUDOC database here and the press release of the ECtHR here.
The application concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression through his criminal conviction for the offence of defamation under Article 363 of the Criminal Code. The charge at the appellate level was converted into the offence of simple defamation under Article 362 of the Criminal Code. The applicant’s appellate conviction was also upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court.
The applicant, in an appearance on a local television network, had made negative statements about two persons who were members of the supervisory board of a third party’s court-appointed legal representation, known in the local community in which the persons involved resided. In particular, he accused them of exploiting the third party’s mental state for their own benefit by making property transfers to themselves for a low value, and in one of his statements he had called them ‘swindlers’. The persons involved were discharged from office and convicted of embezzlement in connection with the above-mentioned actions.
The applicant argued that his criminal conviction amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.
The ECtHR held that the applicant’s conviction amounted to an “interference by a public authority” with his right to freedom of expression. Although it found that the interference was provided for in the law, it asked whether it was “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court found that the national courts had failed to take into account the context in which the statements were made, as, in the Court’s view, they touched on matters of public interest, since they related to a person well known in the local community. It therefore held that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and held that Greece should pay the applicant EUR 7,500 for non-material damage and EUR 1,210 for costs and expenses.
Respect for fundamental rights is one of the key components of a state that is governed by the rule of law. The fundamental rights that every citizen should enjoy are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. It is a primary and indisputable obligation of the state to respect these rights.
In this case, however, the European Court of Human Rights found that the applicant’s right to the freedom of expression had been violated. In particular, it was considered that the applicant’s conviction by the civil courts constituted an interference with his right to freedom of expression, which, not being included in the restrictions provided for in paragraph 2, constituted a violation of Article 10 of the ECHR.
Bank Account number: 1100 0232 0016 560
IBAN: GR56 0140 1100 1100 0232 0016 560
BIC: CRBAGRAA
In a time where the very foundations of democracy are gradually being eroded by the rise of extreme nationalism, alt-right movements, the spread of disinformation and corporate capture, the efforts of organisations such as Vouliwatch are more relevant than ever.
We rely on the generosity of each and every one of you to continue with our efforts for more transparency and accounta
By financially supporting Vouliwatch you support our litigation strategy, our campaigns for transparency and accountability in the political system, the development of new civic tech tools, our research projects and last but not least our impartial and accurate
