Published on 31 March 2025
 
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 53097/20
Christoforos VERNARDAKIS
against Greece
lodged on 26 November 2020
communicated on 14 March 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns civil proceedings initiated against the applicant for defamation on account of a statement published on social media and on a website.
The applicant is a former member of the Parliament and former Minister. In 2015 the Prime Minister decided to hold a referendum for the Greek citizens to express their agreement or disagreement with the bailout conditions proposed by the EU and international institutions. The General Workers Union (ΓΣΕΕ) issued a public statement criticising the referendum. At that time, the applicant, who served as the Secretary General for the Coordination of Government Work, expressed his views through a post on his social media account which was later shared on a website, where he criticised the position of the General Workers Union and of its President, Mr I.P. He challenged their role in advocating for the interests of workers, suggesting that they had exploited them. The applicant used, among others, the term “usurped the stamp of the unions” and asserted that their positions could only be explained by the fact that they had been “bought”.
Mr I.P. initiated civil proceedings against the applicant for slanderous defamation. The first-instance court upheld the action and ordered the applicant to pay 12,000 euros to Mr I.P. for moral damage. This was confirmed by the appellate court. By its judgment no. 1017/2021, finalised on 19 October 2020, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law. It held that the applicant’s statement suggesting that the position of I.P. had been suborned and that it was the result of an exchange was false to the knowledge of the applicant. It found that the applicant, not being a journalist but a politician, aimed at damaging Mr I.P.’s reputation.
The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the domestic courts’ assessment violated his right to freedom of expression.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention, on account of the civil proceedings in which he was found liable for defamation and was ordered to pay damages for his statement?