CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 mai 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 27 May 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 26240/14 TILETYPOS ANONYMI ETAIRIA TILEOPTIKON PROGRAMMATON against Greece lodged on 24 March 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the right to freedom of expression. On 1   December 2009 the National Radio and Television Council (NRTC) imposed an administrative fine of 50.000 euros to the applicant due to a statement made by a guest during a live morning show on 12 September 2009 (decision no.   553/2009). The guest used an expression which was considered inappropriate, to comment upon a political decision of a former Prime Minister. The applicant filed an application with the Supreme Administrative Court ( Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας ) to set aside the NRTC’s decision. On 24 September 2013 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the NRTC’s decision and rejected the application (judgment no.   3300/2013). QUESTION tO THE PARTIES Was there a violation of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2, considering in particular that the fine imposed on the applicant was for a statement made by a guest during a live TV show? Was the amount of the fine imposed in compliance with the requirement of proportionality?