The legality of the secretly filmed video when promoting the public interest
JUDGMENT
Alpha Doryforiki Tileorasi Anonymi Etairia v. Greece 22.02.2018 (application no. 72562/10)
SUMMARY
Secretly filmed videos. Imposition of a fine for the appearance of three secretly filmed videos on TV, one of them depicting a politician who participated in the electronic gambling committee playing “slots”. Violation of the TV channel’s freedom of expression for the video showing the politician playing a lucky game and the right to a fair trial due to the exceeding of the trial’s reasonable time.
PROVISION
Article 10
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant company, Alpha Doryforiki Tileorasi Anonymi Etairia, is a limited liability company based in Greece. It is the owner of the Greek television channel ALPHA.
The case concerned the company’s complaint about being fined for showing three secretly filmed video-recordings of a politician on television.
The videos were first shown on a programme called Jungle in January 2002 and then again three days later on another programme. They concerned a politician, A.C., who was on a parliamentary committee on electronic gambling. The first video showed him entering a gambling arcade and playing on two machines. The other videos showed him being confronted with the first film.
The National Radio and Television Council in May 2002 found that the use of the cameras had not been in accordance with the law and fined the company 100,000 euros for each of the programmes.
It also ordered it to show the content of its decision on the main news programme for three days.
The applicant company’s lawyers argued during the Council’s hearing on the case that the use of the cameras had been justified given A.C.’s position. They also said that filming in that way had been an exception which had been made necessary by the fact that no one would have believed the journalists’ allegations if the images had not been broadcast. The Supreme Administrative Court upheld the penalty on the company in April 2010.
Relying on Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the company complained about the penalties imposed on it and the length of the proceedings.
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
Violation of Article 10 – in respect of the first video No violation of Article 10 – in respect of the second and third videos
Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length of proceedings)
Just satisfaction: 33,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage and EUR 7,000 for non-pecuniary damage (echrcaselaw.com editing).
