CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 janvier 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 203 January 2017 Kapsis and Danikas v. Greece - 52137/12 Judgment 19.1.2017 [Section I] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom of expression Civil liability for newspaper article describing holder of public office as a “total unknown”: violation Facts – The first applicant was a journalist and former proprietor of a daily newspaper; the second was also a journalist and worked for the same newspaper. In December 2004 the second applicant published an article in that newspaper. In a column on political life behind the scenes, the article related to the appointment of the actress P.M. to the subsidies advisory board of the Ministry of Culture’s Theatre Department. In April 2005 P.M. brought an action for damages in the Athens Court of First Instance against the two applicants and the newspaper’s editor, claiming to have been the victim of insults and of a violation of her personality rights. In June 2006 the three defendants were ordered jointly to pay the sum of EUR 30,000 to P.M. The court noted that the use of the words “completely unknown” had overstepped the limits of legitimate criticism and had not been objectively necessary in order for the journalist to express his views on the appointment. It also noted that the claimant’s contribution to theatrical arts and to the country’s representation abroad in cultural matters was considerable. The appeals against that decision were unsuccessful. Law – Article 10: The award of damages against the applicants had constituted interference with their right to freedom of expression. That interference was in accordance with the law and pursued a legitimate aim: the protection of the reputation or rights of others. The expression “completely unknown”, read in context, was a value judgment not requiring proof. That expression was not devoid of any factual basis, since P.M., who was an actress, had not occupied any public position in the past, and the article had not sought to convey information in the strict sense of the word but was part of a column which looked behind the scenes in politics and which was thus known for the sarcastic tone in which it portrayed certain politicians and political developments. The domestic courts had not considered the offending comments in the general context of the case in order to assess the applicants’ intention. The expression “completely unknown” had actually been followed by quite favourable comments on the appointment of P.M. The domestic courts had taken the expression out of context and had concluded that the words “she was not known to a wide circle” would have sufficed for the second applicant to express his views. However, the role of the domestic courts in such proceedings did not consist in telling an author what style to use when exercising his right to criticise, however harsh the criticism might be. Rather they had to examine whether the context of the case, the public interest and the author’s intention justified the possible use of a degree of provocation or exaggeration. P.M. had been appointed as a member of the advisory board on government subsidies to theatres; she thus had an essentially political role, with public duties, and could not therefore be regarded as a “mere private individual”. Those involved in the case had therefore been acting in a public context and the article in question contributed to a debate in the general interest. It had been directed at P.M. only in her capacity as a member of the advisory board. Accordingly, in that capacity she should have expected her appointment to be subjected to close scrutiny by the press, and even to harsh criticism. The expressions used by the second applicant had not therefore been gratuitously offensive. Lastly, the defendants, including the two applicants, had been ordered jointly to pay EUR 30,000 in damages to P.M. The domestic courts had taken into consideration the nature and gravity of the harm caused to the claimant, her status, the defendants’ financial situation and the constitutional principle of proportionality in general terms, but they had not, for example, carried out any analysis of the applicants’ financial situation. Having regard to the foregoing, the national authorities had not provided any relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the award of damages to P.M., this sanction not being proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. This civil judgment against the applicants did not meet a “pressing social need” and was thus not necessary in a democratic society. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 2,000 each in respect of non-pecuniary damage; finding of a violation sufficient for pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes