Communicated on 26 April 2017
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 64184/11
Panagiotis PARASKEVOPOULOS
against Greece
lodged on 23 September 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Panagiotis Paraskevopoulos, is a Greek national who was born in 1964 and lives in Thessaloniki. He is represented before the Court by Mr A. Zachariadis, a lawyer practising in Thessaloniki.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a taxi driver and lives in the area of Chortiatis in Thessaloniki.
In December 2007 the applicant published an article in a local newspaper called Chortiatis 570. The article’s title was “The ludicrousness of power” and stated, inter alia, the following:
“It is known to more or less all of us how some people, fellow citizens or neighbours, especially the latter, act when they think that interests of any kind which they have had ‘since the beginning of time’ are affected ... when these same people get involved in politics and take up a little post, owing to there being a lack of other interested people who are all too often more capable. Because those people will serve petty political – but mostly their own personal – interests much more readily in order to impose themselves more easily than others, others whose vote they wormed out by making many promises ... Those are the totally (un)worthy, squeaky clean people in proper clothes every Sunday ... Those who, when placed in paid positions in charge of local executive bodies, and especially in the local municipality of Filyro, are the same people who consider that their land has suddenly become bigger, and claim a little of the public space between their land and the street. In this space, which they consider to belong to their yard, they plant trees, as if they suddenly have a mania for saving the environment ... they construct their buildings (in our case, a gazebo with a tiled roof) a little further from the limits of their land, saying with impudence that it is not they who are to blame for this, but ‘the bad Albanian’ to whom they assigned [the building work]. So, in order to hinder any ‘reckless’ neighbours or other visitors who [have] the audacity to park their cars in the area between the limits of their land and the street, that is to say in the remaining public space, they put TREES-OBSTACLES. Because they care about any accidents that may happen – not, of course, owing to someone’s choosing to walk or park his or her car there, but owing to the fact that the height of this construction, which accidently (as they claim) juts out of their land, is such that any unsuspecting person runs the risk of getting head injuries when he or she steps out of his or her car ... As they are bailiffs, like spies, they also find out the names of the people who come into the PAVLIDIS area in PHILYRO in order to work, from the number plates of the cars. [These people] find themselves faced with criminal complaints, because they dare to park where all the others park ...”
The president of the local council, E.P., filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for slanderous defamation via the press.
On 24 September 2008 the three-member first-instance criminal court of Thessaloniki (Τριμελές Πλημμελειοδικείο) held a hearing in the case. The applicant argued that, under Article 367 of the Criminal Code, his act had not been wrongful, as what he had written in the published text was true. Furthermore, he had written this with a legitimate interest in the present case, which was his belief that that E.P. had used her position as an elected member of the local council in order to plant trees and construct a pavement in front of her house without permission. The court held that the complainant could be identified from the content of the article, and found the applicant guilty of slanderous defamation via the press. It sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment (decision no. 6484/2008). The applicant appealed against that decision.
On 28 May 2009 the three-member Thessaloniki Court of Appeal (Τριμελές Εφετείο – hereinafter “the Appeal Court”) changed the charges from slanderous defamation to insult (εξύβριση), and found the applicant guilty of insult via the press. It sentenced him to four months’ imprisonment (decision no. 2830/2009). The applicant appealed on points of law on grounds including, inter alia, a lack of sufficient reasoning as to the rejection of his argument under Article 367 of the Criminal Code, which he had repeated in the Appeal Court.
On 5 May 2010 the Court of Cassation (Άρειος Πάγος) quashed the judgment which had been appealed against, on the grounds of a lack of reasoning, and remitted the case to the Appeal Court (decision no. 905/2010).
On 13 July 2010 the Appeal Court held a new hearing in the case. The applicant argued again that his act had not been wrongful, as what he had written in the published article was true, and he had written with a legitimate interest in the matter. The Appeal Court rejected the applicant’s argument and held the following:
“... It was proved that the above-mentioned facts which the defendant disseminated to others via the local press were true, as the complainant admitted ... it follows that, in the present case, the above-mentioned elements objectively and subjectively constitute the criminal act of simple defamation (Article 362 of the Criminal Code) which, however, goes without punishment, under Article 366 § 1 (a) of the Criminal Code. Nevertheless, taking into account the way the above-mentioned defamation was expressed, and in the circumstances which were previously detailed, the court concludes that there was an intention to insult, and for this reason the defendant must be punished for this act. In particular, the court bases its conclusion on the fact that the applicant presented the above-mentioned true facts along with unacceptable value judgments and references to the complainant’s public post, such as, ‘Because those people will serve petty political – but mostly their own personal – interests much more readily in order to impose themselves more easily than others, others whose vote they wormed out by making many promises’, and unfamiliar characterisations such as, ‘Those are the totally (un)worthy, squeaky clean people in proper clothes every Sunday’, or, ‘As they are bailiffs, like spies, they also find out the names of the people from the number plates of the cars’. Lastly, the defendant’s separate argument that he committed this act with a legitimate interest must be dismissed as unfounded, as the above-mentioned expressions included in the article ‘The ludicrousness of power’, which the defendant published in the newspaper Chortiatis 570, indicate that he intended to insult the complainant. These phrases were not necessary in this case for the expression of the defendant’s will to protect the legitimate interest upon which he relied, and he could have used other phrases such as: ‘they try to serve their [own] personal interests’ instead of, ‘Because those people will serve petty political – but mostly their own personal – interests much more readily in order to impose themselves more easily than others, others whose vote they wormed out by making many promises’; or the phrase, ‘the elected public persons’ instead of, ‘Those are the totally (un)worthy, squeaky clean people in proper clothes every Sunday’; as well as the expression, ‘as bailiffs, they know how to find other people’s data’, instead of, ‘As they are bailiffs, like spies, they also find out the names of the people from the number plates of the cars’ ...”
Based on the above, the Appeal Court found the applicant guilty of insult via the press and sentenced him to two months’ imprisonment (decision no. 2712/2010). The applicant appealed on points of law.
On 23 February 2011 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law (decision no. 351/2011). The decision was finalised (καθαρογραφή) on 24 March 2011.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code read:
Article 361
Insult
“1. Except in cases which amount to defamation (Articles 362 and 363), anyone who by words or by deeds or by any other means injures another’s reputation shall be punished by up to one year’s imprisonment, or by a pecuniary penalty. The pecuniary penalty may be imposed in addition to imprisonment.
2. If the injury to reputation is not severe, considering the circumstances and the person injured, the offender shall be punished by imprisonment or a fine.
3. The provision of paragraph 3 of Article 308 shall apply in this case.”
Article 362
Defamation
“Anyone who by any means disseminates information to a third party concerning another which may harm the latter’s honour or reputation shall be punished by up to two years’ imprisonment or a pecuniary penalty. The pecuniary penalty may be imposed in addition to imprisonment.”
Article 363
Slanderous defamation
“If, in a case under Article 362, the information is false and the offender was aware of the falsity thereof, he shall be punished by at least three months’ imprisonment, and, in addition, a pecuniary penalty may be imposed and deprivation of civil rights under Article 63 may be ordered.”
Article 366
“1. If the fact of Article 362 is true, then the act stays unpunished...”
Article 367
“1. The following cannot be considered wrongful acts: ... c) [statements or actions] for the performance of one’s legal duty, the exercise of legal power, or the preservation (protection) of a right, or due to another legitimate interest or d) similar cases.
2. The preceding provision does not apply: a) when the above-mentioned adverse judgments and [statements or actions] have the elements of the act under Article 363, and b) when, from the manner of [the statement or action] or the circumstances in which the act was committed, it follows that there was an intention to insult.”
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that his criminal conviction on account of his remarks concerning a local politician included in an article published in a local magazine violated his right to freedom of expression.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy