CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 mai 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s6BEE91E6 { width:120pt; display:inline-block } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   266 27.5.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RIZOS AND DASKAS v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Rizos and Daskas v. Greece (application no. 65545/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been   no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants 32,179 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and considered that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants, Dimitrios Rizos and Ioannis Daskas, are Greek nationals who were born in 1936 and 1957 respectively and live in Athens. They are both journalists. Mr Rizos is the publisher and editorial director of the daily newspaper Adesmeftos Typos and Mr Daskas is its editor.   In its edition of 19 September 1995 the newspaper published an article by Mr Daskas entitled “There are certain public prosecutors in Epirus...”. The article gave details of unlawful conduct by a public prosecutor in the town of Preveza and reported that an investigation had been opened in respect of three public prosecutors. It also mentioned that the chairman of the Arta Bar was a friend of all three prosecutors and that their political ties meant that they were safe from prosecution.   After one of the prosecutors referred to in the article had brought proceedings for criminal libel and proffering insults, the Salonika Court of First Instance held that, while the first part of the article had contained truthful accusations, the second part had disparaged the prosecutor’s honour and reputation. It accordingly ordered the applicants to pay him the equivalent of EUR 29,347 in damages. That judgment was upheld on appeal, and on 31 October 2000 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicants.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 4 December 2000 and declared admissible on 20 March 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Egil Levits (Latvian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicants submitted that they had not had the benefit of the safeguards of ordinary proceedings because a special procedure was applied to offences committed through the press. They also complained that they had not had the opportunity to show that the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the public prosecutor concerned was not as great as the sum they had been ordered to pay him and submitted that their case had not really been examined by the Court of Cassation. Furthermore, the applicants complained of interference with their freedom of expression in breach of Article 10 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention The Court could not find anything to suggest that the proceedings had been conducted in an arbitrary manner and noted that there was no evidence that the application of the special procedure had prejudiced the applicants. It considered that, taken as a whole, the proceedings in question had been fair within the meaning of Article 6 § 1.   Article 10 of the Convention The decisions against the applicants had amounted to interference by the authorities with their freedom of expression. The interference had been prescribed by law and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others.   The Court considered that the parts of the article that had formed the basis for the applicants’ conviction, namely the allegation that the chairman of the Arta Bar was a friend of all three public prosecutors mentioned, did not go beyond the limits of permissible comment on a topical issue.   Having regard to the facts of the case, the Court was unable to find that the undoubted interest of the public prosecutor in question in protecting his reputation outweighed the vital public interest in receiving information about a matter relating to the functioning of the judicial system. Consequently, notwithstanding the national authorities’ margin of appreciation, the Court considered that there had not been a reasonable balance between the restrictions on the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and the legitimate aim pursued.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.