CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s27210F8D { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4C5A13DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } 111 11.02.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Alfantakis v. Greece (application no. 49330/07)   UNJUSTIFIED RULING AGAINST A LAWYER FOR CRITICISING PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AT THE COURT OF APPEAL IN CONNECTION WITH CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Georgios Alfantakis, is a Greek national who was born in 1939 and lives in Athens.   He was the lawyer for a popular Greek singer (A.V.) in a case that received considerable media coverage, in which the singer had accused his wife, S.P., of fraud, forgery and use of forged documents causing losses to the State of more than 147,000 euros.   On the recommendation of the public prosecutor at the Athens Court of Appeal, D.M., it was decided not to bring charges against S.P.   While appearing live as a guest on Greece’s main television news programme, Mr Alfantakis expressed his views on the criminal proceedings in question, commenting in particular that he had “laughed” on reading D.M.’s report, which he described as a “literary opinion [showing] contempt for [his client]”.   D.M. sued Mr Alfantakis for damages, arguing that his comments had been insulting and defamatory. Mr Alfantakis was ordered to pay damages, and the award was increased on appeal. An appeal on points of law by the applicant was dismissed.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression), the applicant complained about the civil judgment against him. He further alleged, under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), that the Court of Appeal’s judgment had not contained a statement of reasons.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 November 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatia), President , Christos Rozakis (Greece), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijan), Dean Spielmann (Luxembourg), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), George Nicolaou (Cyprus), Judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Article 10   It was not disputed that the interference by the Greek authorities with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression had been “prescribed by law” – by both the Civil Code and the Criminal Code – and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation of others.   While lawyers, as intermediaries between the public and the courts, were expected to observe special rules of conduct, they were also entitled to comment in public on the administration of justice, within certain limits. Nevertheless, the Court did not overlook the fact that in this case the offending comments were directed at a member of the national legal service, creating the risk of a negative impact both on his professional image and on public confidence in the proper administration of justice.   However, instead of ascertaining the direct meaning of the phrase uttered by the applicant, the Court of Appeal had carried out its own interpretation of what the phrase might have implied. In doing so, the domestic court had relied on particularly subjective considerations, potentially ascribing to the applicant intentions he had not in fact had.   Nor had the Court of Appeal made a distinction between facts and value judgments, instead simply determining the effect produced by the phrases “when I read it, I laughed” and “literary opinion”.   The Greek courts had also ignored the extensive media coverage of the case, in the context of which Mr Alfantakis’s appearance on the television news was more indicative of an intention to defend his client’s arguments in public than of a desire to impugn D.M.’s character. Lastly, they had not taken account of the fact that the comments had been broadcast live and could therefore not have been rephrased.   Accordingly, the civil judgment ordering the applicant to pay damages to D.M. had not met a “pressing social need” and there had been a violation of Article 10.   Other Articles   The complaints under Article 6 § 1 overlapped with the applicant’s complaints under Article 10. The Court further considered that the Athens Court of Appeal’s judgment had contained sufficient reasons. This complaint was therefore dismissed as manifestly ill-founded, with the result that the Article 13 complaint was likewise dismissed.   Article 41 (Just satisfaction)   The Court awarded the applicant 12   939 euros in respect of pecuniary damage.   *** Judges Spielmann and Malinverni expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.