CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 February 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 49917/22 Christos ARVANITIS and PHILELEFTHEROS PUBLIC COMPANY LIMITED against Cyprus lodged on 20 October 2022 communicated on 17 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first applicant is a journalist and the second applicant the publisher of the newspaper “ Phileleftheros ”. The application concerns the domestic courts’ judgments, on first instance and appeal, finding the applicants liable for defamation after having criticised a lawyer for the way he had recovered two paintings which belonged to his mother but remained in the areas of the Republic of Cyprus occupied by Turkey, considering that the article lacked, inter alia, sufficient factual basis. The applicants were ordered to pay jointly and/or severally damages, in the amount of 12,000 euros plus legal interest. The applicants complain that the domestic courts’ judgments holding them liable for defamation constituted a disproportionate interference with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Bearing in mind the applicants’ complaint and the criteria established by the Court’s case-law, has there been a violation of their right to freedom of expression contrary to Article 10 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Axel Springer v. Germany (no. 2), no. 48311/10, §§78-95, 10   October 2014 and Lingens v. Austria , 8 July 1986, § 46, Series   A no. 103)?