BALASKAS v. GREECE - 73087/17 (Judgment : Freedom of expression-{general} Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award : First Section) [2020] ECHR 783 (05 November 2020)

BALASKAS v. GREECE - 73087/17 (Judgment : Freedom of expression-{general} Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award : First Section) [2020] ECHR 783 (05 November 2020)

The domestic courts failed to conduct a proper balancing exercise as required by Article 10, did not assess the public interest, the status and prior conduct of B. M., or whether the applicant's value judgments were supported by a factual basis. The imposition of a suspended prison sentence was disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society. The interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was not justified under Article 10(2).

Citation
[2020] ECHR 783
Parties
Applicant: Efstratios Balaskas; Respondent: Hellenic Republic (Greece)
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
05 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment on Merits and Just Satisfaction
Outcome
Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found; just satisfaction awarded.
Legal Topics
Freedom of Expression, Defamation, Insult Through the Press, Journalistic Duties, Balancing of Rights, Proportionality of Sanctions
Human Rights Law Criminal Law Media Law Freedom of Expression Defamation Insult Through the Press Journalistic Duties Balancing of Rights +1 more

Case Brief

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 4 Authorities cited 59 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Efstratios Balaskas

Applicant

Hellenic Republic (Greece)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment on Merits and Just Satisfaction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's criminal conviction for insult through the press violated Article 10 of the Convention (freedom of expression)
  2. 2 Whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued

Ratio Decidendi

The domestic courts failed to conduct a proper balancing exercise as required by Article 10, did not assess the public interest, the status and prior conduct of B. M., or whether the applicant's value judgments were supported by a factual basis. The imposition of a suspended prison sentence was disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society. The interference with the applicant's freedom of expression was not justified under Article 10(2).

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 10 of the Convention found; just satisfaction awarded.

Orders

  • The respondent State is to pay the applicant EUR 1,603.58 in respect of pecuniary damage.
  • The respondent State is to pay the applicant EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.