CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 octobre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; 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 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   673 11.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KANELLOPOULOU v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kanellopoulou v. Greece (application no. 28504/05).   The Court held: unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights; by five votes to two that there had been a violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court, by five votes to two, awarded the applicant 503   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR   8,000 for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vassiliki Kanellopoulou, is a Greek national who was born in 1951 and lives in Piraeus (Greece).   In September 1997 Mrs Kanellopoulou underwent breast reduction surgery performed by Dr   X. Immediately after the operation she complained of severe chest pains, her breasts became swollen and she had difficulty moving her arms. Dr X. informed her that histological tests had shown the existence of cancerous tissue in both breasts, which would have to be surgically removed. A mastectomy was then performed by a different doctor. Dr X. subsequently inserted silicone implants and operated on the applicant several times, in particular because the implant in her right breast had torn and was leaking, before eventually removing both implants. The applicant continues to suffer from severe side-effects.   In July 2001 the applicant brought an action for damages against Dr X. and the private clinic where he had performed the operations; in February 2002 she brought a further action against the doctor who had performed the mastectomy. The proceedings are still pending before the Athens Court of First Instance.   As Dr X. was well known in Greece, the case had in the meantime aroused the interest of the press. In January and February 2002 the tabloid newspapers Espresso and Traffic News reported certain comments made by Mrs Kanellopoulou: “Why did he carry out a breast reduction when he knew I had cancer?”; “Dr X. cut my throat as if I were a sheep”; “He destroyed me”; “I was shouting that I wanted to see him to talk about it” and “There was liquid running out of my right breast”.   In December 2002 Dr X. lodged a complaint against the applicant for defamation, but took no action against the newspapers or the authors of the articles in question. On 3 June 2003 the court found that “the remarks reported in the press were liable to damage Dr X.’s honour and reputation” and that the applicant “knew that the allegations were false”. It found the applicant guilty and sentenced her to a suspended term of 13 months’ imprisonment. The sentence was subsequently reduced to five months, suspended.   The applicant appealed on points of law, arguing, in particular, that several of the phrases on which her conviction had been based had come, not from her, but the authors of the articles. In April 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was unfounded.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 July 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges , and also André Wampach , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Articles 6 § 1 and 10, the applicant complained of the excessive length of the civil proceedings for damages which she had brought and of her criminal conviction for defamation.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   The Court observed that the civil proceedings for damages had commenced in July 2001 and were still pending. They had therefore lasted for over six years to date, for one level of jurisdiction. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court considered that such a period was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   Article 10   The Court reiterated that freedom of expression constituted one of the foundations of any democratic society and that it applied also to information that offended, shocked or disturbed.   Although publication of the articles in question could have had an adverse effect on Dr   X.’s professional image, the interest in protecting his reputation had not been sufficient to justify the custodial sentence, albeit suspended, handed down to Mrs Kanellopoulou. The Court also considered that, even assuming that the applicant had been at fault, the means available under civil law would have sufficed to settle the matter.   The applicant had undergone a painful experience and suffered from serious after-effects. It was therefore surprising to say the least that she had been given a prison sentence for having expressed her suffering without any apparent intention other than to give vent to her distress. While she might have expressed herself in coarse and virulent terms, it had to be borne in mind that the expressions used had reflected her own perception of the seriousness of her condition.   The Court added that it was important not to confuse the intentions of the applicant with those of the tabloid press, which had taken an interest in the case in particular because Dr X. was well known. Hence, the Greek courts had not placed the remarks in the particular context of the case, nor had they taken proper account of the distress felt by Mrs   Kanellopoulou when she had made the statements.   The Court concluded that the restriction of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had not been reasonably proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by the Greek authorities. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 10.   Judges Loucaides and Kovler expressed a joint dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 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. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, 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.