CHAMBER JUDGMENT KATRAMI v. GREECE (Αρ. 10 ΕΣΔΑ-Ελευθερία Έκφρασης)

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment¹ in the case of Katrami v. Greece (application no. 19331/05).

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (freedom of expression) on account of the applicant’s conviction for using insulting language following the publication of an article calling into question a judge’s morality and professional abilities.

Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 7,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)

1.  Principal facts

The applicant, Alexandra Katrami, is a Greek national who was born in 1966 and lives in Loutra Edipsou (Greece). She is a journalist by profession and the publisher of a monthly not-for-profit publication which prints local news about Istiea in Greece.

In April 2001, in an article published in the monthly, Mrs Katrami complained of irregularities in the investigation of a case in which her sister was involved, referring to allegedly criminal acts of the mayor of Istiea and the investigating judge dealing with the case. She asserted in particular that the investigating judge had not had a summons served at her sister’s known address, which was a procedural condition laid down by the relevant legislation, and that he had added to the file a false statement made by the mayor. In the same article the applicant used the word karagiozis to describe the judge and emphasised that he had “broken his sworn oath”. The word karagiozis means a type of puppet in a Greek shadow play, borrowed from Turkish culture. It has a negative connotation and is used to designate a person thought to be ridiculous, implying that the person concerned is a “clown”.

In June 2001 the investigating judge brought defamation proceedings against Mrs Katrami. In April 2002 she was given a suspended sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment. On appeal Mrs Katrami asserted that the facts on which her allegations had been based were true and that it was her duty as a journalist to inform the public about acts of omission by those responsible for administering justice. She added that the offending remarks had been value judgments.

In July 2004 Athens Court of Appeal accepted that the facts were not inaccurately reported in the article and held that the offence of defamation had not been made out. It reclassified the offence and ultimately sentenced the applicant to one year’s imprisonment, suspended, for using insulting language. After an appeal on points of law, that sentence was upheld in December 2004.

In the meantime, the investigating judge brought an action for damages against the applicant and the related proceedings are at present pending in the Greek courts.

2.  Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24 May 2005.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), President,
Christos Rozakis (Greek),
Nina Vajić (Croatian),
Anatoli Kovler (Russian),
Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian),
Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani),
Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges,

and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.

3.  Summary of the judgment²

Complaint

Relying on Article 10, Mrs Katrami complained of her conviction for using insulting language.

Decision of the Court

Article 10

The Court referred to the “watchdog” role played by the press in a democratic society and emphasised that journalistic freedom involved recourse to a certain degree of exaggeration and even provocation.

Noting that a criminal penalty had been imposed on the applicant, the Court took the view that a prison sentence for an offence committed through the medium of the press was not compatible with the freedom of journalistic expression, guaranteed by Article 10. Moreover, the judge’s reputation could have been protected by civil-law means – indeed civil proceedings against the applicant for damages were currently pending.

Furthermore, the Court considered that the words “break one’s oath” and “karagiozis” were value judgments, not capable of proof. On that point, it noted that the Greek courts had made no distinction between facts and value judgments, but had only considered whether the words used by the applicant were capable of impairing the judge’s dignity and honour.

The Court held that there was no relationship of proportionality between the restriction on Mrs Katrami’s freedom of expression and the legitimate aim pursued. It could not accept that the interest in protecting the investigating judge’s reputation and guaranteeing the unimpeded administration of justice was sufficient to justify the applicant’s criminal conviction. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 10.