JUDGMENT
Matalas v. Greece 25.03.2021 (app. no. 1864/18)
see here
SUMMARY
Criminal liability of a managing director of a Greek public limited company for defamation for comments he had made in his capacity regarding a former legal adviser of the company regarding her work. Freedom of expression.
In particular, he sent her an official document stating that he condemned the unprofessional and unethical behavior she showed and that there was a sign of malicious intention on her part to harm the interests of the company and that the information she provided was incomplete and incorrect.
The lawyer who received the letter filed a defamation suit against him. The domestic courts sentenced him irrevocably to 5 months suspended imprisonment. However, the ECtHR found that the Greek courts failed to assess all the facts, characterizing as “facts” evaluative judgments without providing sufficient reasoning.
According to the Court the applicant ‘s statements constituted evaluative judgments based on facts, and the language used was mild and not offensive. In addition, that official document was sent privately and the applicant had not published or otherwise made his allegations available to the public.
The ECtHR found a violation of freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR) and sentenced Greece to 9,000 euros in non-pecuniary damage and 4,200 euros in court costs.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Theodoros Matalas, is a Greek national who was born in 1968 and lives in Kifissia
(Greece).
In 2007 the applicant was appointed CEO of AGROGI A.E. He asked all employees to provide him
with information concerning their professional activities. L.P., a lawyer, informed the applicant orally
of the legal cases pending against the company. The applicant, questioning the accuracy of this
information, had L.P. removed from her position and took other related measures, including
demanding the return of legal files. Having allegedly not been fully informed about the pending legal
cases against the company, the applicant sent an official document to her stating, among other
things, the following:
“We condemn the unprofessional and contrary-to-ethics behaviour that you have shown towards
our company … [showing] malicious intention on your part to harm the company’s interests … [T]he
information that you have so far provided to us is incomplete and erroneous.”
On 22 April 2008 L.P. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant, alleging slanderous
defamation. He was found guilty at first instance, and on appeal. The Court of Cassation, in the main,
dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant. The applicant ultimately received a fivemonth suspended prison sentence.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the
applicant complained that his criminal conviction for slanderous defamation had violated his rights.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court considered that the applicant’s conviction had amounted to “interference by public
authority” with his right to freedom of expression. It found that the interference had been
prescribed by law, leaving the question of whether it had been “necessary in a democratic society”.
The Court found that accusing L.P. of unprofessional and unethical behaviour could have harmed her
reputation and career. The Court had to balance her right to respect for her reputation with the
applicant’s right to freedom of expression.
The Court noted that the criticisms of L.P. had been classified as “facts” by the domestic courts
without providing convincing reasoning. The Court found that these statements had been “value
judgments”, and that other statements of fact had supported those value judgments. The applicant’s
arguments in that connection had not been addressed by the domestic courts. The Court noted that
the language used had been moderate and not insulting. In addition, the official document had been
sent privately, and the applicant had not published or otherwise made his allegations available to
the outside world and thus, his allegations could only have had a limited impact on L.P.’s reputation.
The Court also noted that the domestic courts had failed to take into account the context – an
ongoing dispute involving the applicant – in which the comments had been made and had failed to
assess any damage to L.P.’s reputation.
Overall, the Court found that the nature and context of the impugned text should not have resulted
in a prison sentence, even a suspended one, as that sanction had inevitably had a chilling effect on
free speech.
The Court found that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Greece was to pay the applicant 9,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 4,200 in respect of costs and expenses.
The criminal conviction of a CEO of a company for comments about unprofessional behavior of a lawyer, violated the freedom of expression!
JUDGMENT
Matalas v. Greece 25.03.2021 (app. no. 1864/18)
see here
SUMMARY
Criminal liability of a managing director of a Greek public limited company for defamation for comments he had made in his capacity regarding a former legal adviser of the company regarding her work. Freedom of expression.
In particular, he sent her an official document stating that he condemned the unprofessional and unethical behavior she showed and that there was a sign of malicious intention on her part to harm the interests of the company and that the information she provided was incomplete and incorrect.
The lawyer who received the letter filed a defamation suit against him. The domestic courts sentenced him irrevocably to 5 months suspended imprisonment. However, the ECtHR found that the Greek courts failed to assess all the facts, characterizing as “facts” evaluative judgments without providing sufficient reasoning.
According to the Court the applicant ‘s statements constituted evaluative judgments based on facts, and the language used was mild and not offensive. In addition, that official document was sent privately and the applicant had not published or otherwise made his allegations available to the public.
The ECtHR found a violation of freedom of expression (Article 10 of the ECHR) and sentenced Greece to 9,000 euros in non-pecuniary damage and 4,200 euros in court costs.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Theodoros Matalas, is a Greek national who was born in 1968 and lives in Kifissia
(Greece).
In 2007 the applicant was appointed CEO of AGROGI A.E. He asked all employees to provide him
with information concerning their professional activities. L.P., a lawyer, informed the applicant orally
of the legal cases pending against the company. The applicant, questioning the accuracy of this
information, had L.P. removed from her position and took other related measures, including
demanding the return of legal files. Having allegedly not been fully informed about the pending legal
cases against the company, the applicant sent an official document to her stating, among other
things, the following:
“We condemn the unprofessional and contrary-to-ethics behaviour that you have shown towards
our company … [showing] malicious intention on your part to harm the company’s interests … [T]he
information that you have so far provided to us is incomplete and erroneous.”
On 22 April 2008 L.P. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant, alleging slanderous
defamation. He was found guilty at first instance, and on appeal. The Court of Cassation, in the main,
dismissed an appeal on points of law by the applicant. The applicant ultimately received a fivemonth suspended prison sentence.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the
applicant complained that his criminal conviction for slanderous defamation had violated his rights.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT…
The Court considered that the applicant’s conviction had amounted to “interference by public
authority” with his right to freedom of expression. It found that the interference had been
prescribed by law, leaving the question of whether it had been “necessary in a democratic society”.
The Court found that accusing L.P. of unprofessional and unethical behaviour could have harmed her
reputation and career. The Court had to balance her right to respect for her reputation with the
applicant’s right to freedom of expression.
The Court noted that the criticisms of L.P. had been classified as “facts” by the domestic courts
without providing convincing reasoning. The Court found that these statements had been “value
judgments”, and that other statements of fact had supported those value judgments. The applicant’s
arguments in that connection had not been addressed by the domestic courts. The Court noted that
the language used had been moderate and not insulting. In addition, the official document had been
sent privately, and the applicant had not published or otherwise made his allegations available to
the outside world and thus, his allegations could only have had a limited impact on L.P.’s reputation.
The Court also noted that the domestic courts had failed to take into account the context – an
ongoing dispute involving the applicant – in which the comments had been made and had failed to
assess any damage to L.P.’s reputation.
Overall, the Court found that the nature and context of the impugned text should not have resulted
in a prison sentence, even a suspended one, as that sanction had inevitably had a chilling effect on
free speech.
The Court found that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression.
Just satisfaction (Article 41)
The Court held that Greece was to pay the applicant 9,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage and EUR 4,200 in respect of costs and expenses.