CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 octobre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 27 October 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 23965/23 Eleftherios CHARALAMBOPOULOS against Greece lodged on 9 June 2023 communicated on 7 October 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s obligation to pay 10,000   euros (EUR) in compensation to D.M., owner of one of the biggest football clubs in Greece, for defamatory statements. The applicant is a sports journalist who manages a sports website. The contested statements, alleging that D.M. used abusive, violent and “mafia ‑ like” practices, appeared in an article published on 15   May 2018 on that site. In 2019 the applicant was obligated by the Athens Court of First Instance to pay the compensation to D.M. for failure to conduct fact-checking and research for his article. In 2021 the Athens Court of Appeals upheld that decision. On 29 May 2021 the applicant paid a total sum of EUR 12,800 to D.M. in compensation. On 10 February 2023 the Court of Cassation rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law and obligated the applicant to pay a further EUR   2,700 in legal costs. Before the domestic courts, the applicant argued that his value judgments had been considered as “factual claims”; the effect of the contested article on D.M.’s family, social and professional life had not been properly assessed; a fair balance between the applicant’s and D.M.’s rights had not been struck; and paying a high amount in compensation on top of publishing the domestic courts’ decision on his website had a chilling effect on him. Under Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains of the domestic civil courts’ decision to order compensation and interests to D.M. for defamatory statements. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant’s freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention been breached in the present case (see Dimitriou v.   Greece , no.   62639/12, §§ 45-48, 11   March 2021; Kapsis and Danikas v.   Greece , no.   52137/12, §§ 32-35, 19   January 2017; Koutsoliontos and Pantazis v.   Greece , nos. 54608/09 and 54590/09, §§ 35-41, 22 September 2015)?