ATHANASIOS MAKRIS v. GREECE - 55135/10 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (First Section)) French Text [2017] ECHR 237 (09 March 2017)

ATHANASIOS MAKRIS v. GREECE - 55135/10 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (First Section)) French Text [2017] ECHR 237 (09 March 2017)

The applicant's conviction for defamation constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. The domestic courts failed to sufficiently explain why the applicant's statements were false, and the statements were made in the context of political debate on a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ECHR 237
Parties
Applicant: Athanasios Makris; Respondent: Republic of Greece
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
09 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment (merits and Just Satisfaction)
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 ECHR found
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Political Speech, Proportionality of Sanctions
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Freedom of Expression Defamation Political Speech Proportionality of Sanctions

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Athanasios Makris

Applicant

Republic of Greece

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Article 34 ECHR / Judgment (merits and Just Satisfaction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's conviction for defamation constituted a violation of Article 10 ECHR (freedom of expression)
  2. 2 Whether the interference was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was necessary in a democratic society

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's conviction for defamation constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. The domestic courts failed to sufficiently explain why the applicant's statements were false, and the statements were made in the context of political debate on a matter of public interest. Even a suspended prison sentence has a chilling effect on political speech. Therefore, the interference was not necessary in a democratic society.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 ECHR found

Orders

  • The respondent state must pay the applicant 3,000 EUR for non-pecuniary damage.
  • The respondent state must pay the applicant 1,500 EUR for costs and expenses incurred before the Court.