REPORTS
Legislative Affairs & Government Oversight
Freedom of the Press
Fundamental Rights
Freedom of Speech & Expression
Balaskas v. Greece – Greece found to be in violation of Article 10 of the ECHR
Freedom of expression, enshrined in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter the ECHR), is one of the basic 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, provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the ECHR, must be strictly interpreted, and the need for any restrictions must be convincingly demonstrated. In particular, the intervention of any public authority in the right to expression must be provided for by law, be necessary for a democratic society and must take place only in the pursuit of one of the purposes mentioned in paragraph 2. If any of the above does not apply, then it is considered that there has been a violation of Article 10 (see more in this guide to Article 10 of the Convention).
On November 5, 2020, the ECtHR decision in the case of Balaskas v. Greece (appeal no. 73087/17) was issued, recognizing that Greece had violated Article 10 of the ECHR. (Also see the ECtHR press release).
The case concerned a journalist’s complaint about his criminal conviction following an article he had written criticising the headmaster of a local high school for posting the view on his personal blog that the massive student uprising of 1973 was “the ultimate lie”. In his article the journalist, writing for a Lesbos daily newspaper, had referred to the headmaster as a “neo-nazi” and “theoretician of the entity ‘Golden Dawn’”.
Following a criminal complaint filed by the headmaster, the first-instance court ruled that these expressions constituted value judgments, and not facts, which intentionally insulted the headmaster’s honour and reputation. He was thus found guilty of insult via the press and given a 6 month suspended prison sentence. All the applicant’s subsequent appeals were unsuccessful, based on the same reasoning.
The Court considered that the Greek courts had failed to balance the applicant’s right to freedom of expression against the headmaster’s right to respect for private life. They had simply limited themselves to finding that the statements at issue had been value judgments and had tarnished the headmaster’s reputation, without taking into account the criteria established in the Court’s case-law for carrying out such a balancing exercise.
In particular, the courts had not taken into account the applicant’s duty as a journalist to impart information on a matter of public interest and the contribution of his article to such a debate. The courts had focused on the expressions used by the applicant detached from their context, ignoring the fact that the headmaster’s views had been capable of giving rise to considerable controversy.
Similarly, the courts had failed to explicitly address the fact that the headmaster, a civil servant vested with public functions, had previously expressed his views on political matters through his blog and had therefore willingly exposed himself to public scrutiny and journalistic criticism.
Nor had the courts assessed any good or bad faith on the applicant’s part. The courts had correctly classified his expressions as value judgments, but they had failed to review whether they had been supported by a clear factual basis, despite the fact that he had brought to their attention the headmaster’s previously posted articles.
Lastly, there had been no justification for imposing a prison sentence in the applicant’s case, which would inevitably have a chilling effect on public discussion.
Indeed, the Court noted that it had already found a violation of Article 10 of the Convention in a number of cases against Greece owing to the domestic courts’ failure to apply standards in conformity with its case-law concerning freedom of expression when weighed up against the protection of an individual’s reputation.
The Court therefore concluded that the applicant’s criminal conviction had amounted to an interference with his right to freedom of expression which had not been “necessary in a democratic society”. There had, accordingly, been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.
The fundamental rights that every citizen should enjoy are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Respect for these fundamental rights is one of the key components of a state governed by the rule of law.
In the Balaskas v. Greece case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been violated by the criminal conviction imposed on him by the national courts, which had failed to take into account the criteria by which restrictions on the right to expression may be imposed.
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
