\nCASE OF MATALAS v. GREECE<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 1864\/18)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Art 10 \u2022 Freedom of expression \u2022 Unjustified criminal conviction and prison sentence for slanderous defamation, for statements in private correspondence \u2022 Private dispute not reaching the public \u2022 Mutatis mutandis application of Court case-law on disparaging statements against public officials in written complaints to authorities \u2022\u00a0Suspension of sentence irrelevant, particularly as criminal conviction itself not expunged<\/p>\n
STRASBOURG
\n25 March 2021<\/p>\n
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 \u00a7 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Matalas v. Greece,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a\u00a0Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n Ksenija Turkovi\u0107, President, Having regard to:<\/p>\n the application (no.\u00a01864\/18) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Greek national, Mr Theodoros Matalas (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 4 January 2018;<\/p>\n the decision to give notice to the Greek Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) of the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;<\/p>\n the parties\u2019 observations;<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 16 February 2021,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n 1. The application concerns the criminal conviction of the applicant, the managing director of a public limited liability company, for slanderous defamation of the former lawyer of the company. The applicant had sent to that lawyer an official document in which he had referred to her behaviour as \u201cunprofessional and contrary to ethics\u201d (\u201c\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c0\u03b1\u03b3\u03b3\u03b5\u03bb\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b4\u03b5\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03ba\u03ae\u201d) and had criticised her because, in his view, she had not fully informed him about the court cases against the company.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 2. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Kifissia. He was represented by Mr G. Papalambros, a lawyer practising in Athens.<\/p>\n 3. The Government were represented by their Agent\u2019s delegate, Ms\u00a0A.\u00a0Dimitrakopoulou, senior advisor at the State Legal Council.<\/p>\n 4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 5. By a decision of the Minister of Agricultural Development dated 5\u00a0November\u00a02007, the applicant was appointed CEO of a limited liability company, AGROGI A.E. (\u201cthe company\u201d), for the period between 5\u00a0November 2007 and 4\u00a0November 2008. On the same day, the applicant requested all the employees and advisors of the company to provide all relevant information regarding matters falling under their respective responsibility, so that he could gain a complete picture of the company and any outstanding issues affecting it. Among the employees invited was Ms\u00a0L.P., who was at the time the company\u2019s legal advisor.<\/p>\n 6. Ms L.P. came to the office on 10 November 2007 and informed the applicant orally about pending legal cases involving the company. Subsequently, on 23 November 2007, she handed a report to the applicant, informing him about pending legal cases involving the company. According to the applicant, who questioned the accuracy of the report (arguing that it was incomplete), that note consisted of six lines and mentioned in general terms that there were no pending legal cases in which the company was involved.<\/p>\n 7. On 11 December 2007, the applicant, as CEO of the company, sent an official document to Ms L.P. removing her from her position as legal adviser to the company. He additionally served Ms L.P. with another two official documents on 13 and 21 December 2007 informing her that he had deposited to the Deposits and Loans Fund the compensation due to her following the termination of her contract after she had refused to receive a\u00a0cheque. On 14 January 2008, an additional official document was served on Ms\u00a0L.P. requesting her to hand in all files relating to the pending legal issues facing the company that she had in her possession and to collect her personal belongings from her office in the company\u2019s premises.<\/p>\n 8. On 24 January Ms L.P. sent to the applicant an official document informing him that she would call at the company on that day in order to hand over the files and any other items relating to her duties that she had in her possession.<\/p>\n 9. Ms L.P. visited the company\u2019s premises and handed over the files at a\u00a0time when the applicant was absent; however, the applicant continued to assert that Ms L.P. had not surrendered all the information relating to the company\u2019s pending legal cases. Accordingly, on 4 February 2008 the applicant sent to Mrs L.P. an official document that was served on her on 6\u00a0February 2008. In it, he mentioned, inter alia, the following:<\/p>\n \u201c… we condemn the unprofessional and contrary to ethics behaviour that you have shown towards our company, which has shown so far great tolerance towards you. … Until today, despite the numerous official documents that we have addressed to you, you still have not informed us of the progress of the legal cases that you have handled \u2013 in particular legal cases involving our company that are still pending \u2013 with a persistence that can only be explained by a malicious intention on your part to harm the company\u2019s interests, in revenge for the fact that we removed you from the duties that had been assigned to you. Additionally, not only have you failed to deliver to us a complete and clear table detailing the progress and handling of judicial cases, but the information that you have so far provided to us is incomplete and erroneous …\u201d<\/p>\n 10. On 22 April 2008 Ms L.P. lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant, alleging slanderous defamation resulting from the document of 4\u00a0February 2008.<\/p>\n 11. On 26 November 2014 the one-member first-instance Misdemeanour Court of Athens held a hearing in the case. The applicant argued that he had not had any intention of harming L.P.\u2019s reputation. The court found the applicant guilty of slanderous defamation and imposed on him a suspended sentence of ten months\u2019 imprisonment (decision no. 97314\/2014). The applicant appealed against that decision.<\/p>\n 12. On 7 October 2015 the three-member Misdemeanour Court of Athens heard the applicant\u2019s appeal. The applicant once again stated that the information contained in the official document dated 4 February 2008 had been based on facts, as L.P. had refused to fully inform him regarding the company\u2019s pending legal cases. He mentioned as an example that on 14\u00a0January 2008 he had accidentally been informed by the opposite party\u2019s lawyer that a trial was scheduled for the following day, whereas L.P. had noted down as the trial date 15 February 2008. He cited a full history of the dispute between him (in his capacity as managing director) and L.P. (as the former legal advisor to the company). He stated that only after he had served on her many official documents had she responded on 24 January 2008, sending him an official document in which she had informed him that she would call in at the company on that same day in order to hand over all outstanding files. He also cited Article 367 of the Criminal Code, arguing that he had made the impugned statements in his capacity as managing director of the company in an effort to protect its interests.<\/p>\n 13. The appellate court, in its decision no. 34042\/2015, held that the applicant had used expressions that had not been necessary for the protection of the company\u2019s interests. Those unnecessary expressions had included lies (which had been contained in the above-mentioned official document dated 4 February 2008), as he had known when he had sent it that L.P. had fully informed him of the legal cases involving the company. None of the evidence adduced proved the applicant\u2019s allegation that he had not been fully informed of all pending legal issues and cases involving the company: the deposition made under oath by the new legal advisor to the appellate court (that is to say, L.P.\u2019s replacement) could not prove his assertion in that regard, as she had not been present at any meeting with L.P. Nor had L.P. contacted her in connection with her new responsibilities. In addition, when L.P. had handed over the files on 24\u00a0January 2008, the company employee receiving them had signed the handover record without writing any remarks on it.\u00a0The appellate court concluded that the applicant\u2019s allegations contained in the above-mentioned official document amounted to \u201cfacts\u201d (\u03b3\u03b5\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1) and were false. Those allegations had come to be known by numerous people, including the lawyer who had drafted the official document, the person who had served it on L.P., and the people in the building in which had her office (given the fact that the document had been attached to and left on her door, as she had been absent when the attempt had been made to serve it on her). The appellate court thus found the applicant guilty of slanderous defamation and sentenced him to a\u00a0suspended prison sentence of eight months (decision no. 34042\/2015). It additionally rejected the applicant\u2019s argument to that he had lived an honest life until that point and that a more lenient sentence should be imposed on him.<\/p>\n 14. The applicant appealed on points of law, on the grounds that included the erroneous application of Articles 362 and 367 of the Criminal Code, which had resulted in the rejection of the arguments that he had made thereunder. In particular, he argued that the appellate court had acted erroneously in finding his allegations to be false, as proved by the multiple official documents that he had been forced to serve on the complainant owing to her failure to provide accurate information regarding the pending legal cases in which the company was involved. The applicant had adduced evidence proving that what he had stated had been true, and the domestic court had failed to provide reasoning for its conclusion that the applicant had known that his statements had been false. In addition, the first-instance court had erroneously deemed that he had disseminated the contents of the document beyond its intended recipient. He had made his statements in a\u00a0document addressed solely to L.P. Neither the bailiff who had served the document on her nor the residents of the building had had any interest in reading the document. This document had been posted on her door because of her absence (despite the fact that the applicant had not instructed the bailiff to do so). Lastly, the appellate court should have accepted the extenuating circumstances he had invoked, namely that he had lived an honest life.<\/p>\n 15. On 25 May 2017 the Court of Cassation quashed the appellate court judgment in part rejecting the applicant\u2019s argument that he had lived an honest life before the events in question. However, the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal on points of law in respect of the remainder of the appellate court\u2019s judgment (decision no.\u00a01182\/2017). The Court of Cassation held that the judgment of the Court of Appeal had included sufficient reasoning as regards the other parts of its decision. In addition, it had acted correctly in dismissing the applicant\u2019s argument that he had had a\u00a0legitimate interest in sending the impugned document to L.P., as Article\u00a0367 did not apply when the allegations in question were false, as they had been in the present case. The decision was finalised (\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03ae) on 6 July 2017.<\/p>\n 16. The case was remitted to the three-member Misdemeanour Court of Athens for it to rule again on the extenuating circumstances. It held a\u00a0hearing on 4\u00a0October 2017 and after accepting that the applicant had previously lived an honest life, sentenced the applicant to a suspended prison sentence of five months.<\/p>\n RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n I. Domestic law<\/strong><\/p>\n A. Criminal Code<\/strong><\/p>\n 17. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code read:<\/p>\n Article 361 \u201c1. Except in cases that amount to defamation (Articles 362 and 363), anyone who by words or by deeds or by any other means injures another\u2019s reputation shall be punished with up to one year\u2019s imprisonment, or with a pecuniary penalty. The pecuniary penalty may be imposed in addition to imprisonment.<\/p>\n 2. If the injury to reputation is not severe, considering the circumstances and the person injured, the offender shall be punished by imprisonment or a fine.<\/p>\n 3. The provision of paragraph 3 of Article 308 shall apply in this case.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 362 \u201cAnyone who by any means disseminates information to a third party concerning another person that may harm the latter\u2019s honour or reputation shall be punished with up to two years\u2019 imprisonment or a pecuniary penalty. A pecuniary penalty may be imposed in addition to imprisonment.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 363 \u201cIf, in a case [tried] under Article 362, the information [disseminated] is false and the offender was aware of its falsity, he shall be punished with at least three months\u2019 imprisonment, and, in addition, a pecuniary penalty may be imposed and deprivation of civil rights under Article 63 may be ordered.\u201d<\/p>\n Article 366<\/p>\n \u201c1. If the information [disseminated as referred to in] Article 362 is true, then the act shall remain unpunished …\u201d<\/p>\n Article 367<\/p>\n \u201c1. The following cannot be considered wrongful acts: … c) [statements or actions undertaken in the course of] performing one\u2019s legal duty, exercising a legal power, or preserving (protecting) a right, or in pursuit of another legitimate interest or d) similar cases.<\/p>\n 2. The preceding provision does not apply: a) when the above-mentioned adverse judgments and [statements or actions] have the elements [listed in] Article 363, and b) when, from the manner … or the circumstances in which the statement or action was undertaken, it follows that there was an intention to insult.\u201d<\/p>\n B. Code of Civil Procedure<\/strong><\/p>\n 18. Article 128 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1. If the recipient is not at home, then the document shall be served on one of his adult relatives or any servants who live with him\/her. If they are absent or [no such relatives or servants] exist, then the document shall be served on any other adult co-residents who are aware of their actions and are not participating in the trial as opponents of the interested party.<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n 4. If none of those referred to in paragraph 1 is at home, then a) the document must be affixed to the door of the residence in a sealed envelope, on which there will be [written] only the names of the bailiff and the person to whom the document is addressed, in the presence of a witness. In the case of [apartment] buildings whose entrance doors are closed and it is not possible to affix the document to the door of the [apartment of the person in question], it can be affixed to the entrance to the building in question; b) at the latest on the next working day following the affixing of the document to the door, a copy of the document … must be delivered into the hands of the head of the police station or police office for the region in which the residence is located; … c) at the latest on the next working day after the delivery, pursuant to point b) above, the person who served the document must send by post, to the person to whom the document is addressed, a written notification in which he specifies the kind of document that was served, the residential address at which it was posted, the date on which it was posted, the authority to which the document was delivered, and the date of delivery …\u201d<\/p>\n II. INTERNATIONAL LAW<\/p>\n 19. On 4 October 2007 the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Resolution 1577 (2007), entitled \u201cTowards decriminalisation of defamation\u201d. Its relevant passages read as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c…<\/p>\n 6. Anti-defamation laws pursue the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation and rights of others. The Assembly nonetheless urges member states to apply these laws with the utmost restraint since they can seriously infringe freedom of expression. For this reason, the Assembly insists that there be procedural safeguards enabling anyone charged with defamation to substantiate their statements in order to absolve themselves of possible criminal responsibility.<\/p>\n 7. In addition, statements or allegations which are made in the public interest, even if they prove to be inaccurate, should not be punishable provided that they were made without knowledge of their inaccuracy, without intention to cause harm, and their truthfulness was checked with proper diligence.<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n 12. Every case of imprisonment of a media professional is an unacceptable hindrance to freedom of expression and entails that, despite the fact that their work is in the public interest, journalists have a sword of Damocles hanging over them. The whole of society suffers the consequences when journalists are gagged by pressure of this kind.<\/p>\n 13. The Assembly consequently takes the view that prison sentences for defamation should be abolished without further delay. In particular it exhorts states whose laws still provide for prison sentences \u2013 although prison sentences are not actually imposed \u2013 to abolish them without delay so as not to give any excuse, however unjustified, to those countries which continue to impose them, thus provoking a corrosion of fundamental freedoms.<\/p>\n 14. The Assembly likewise condemns abusive recourse to unreasonably large awards for damages and interest in defamation cases and points out that a compensation award of a disproportionate amount may also contravene Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n 17. The Assembly accordingly calls on the member states to:<\/p>\n 17.1. abolish prison sentences for defamation without delay;<\/p>\n 17.2. guarantee that there is no misuse of criminal prosecutions for defamation and safeguard the independence of prosecutors in these cases;<\/p>\n 17.3. define the concept of defamation more precisely in their legislation so as to avoid an arbitrary application of the law and to ensure that civil law provides effective protection of the dignity of persons affected by defamation;<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n 17.5. make only incitement to violence, hate speech and promotion of negationism punishable by imprisonment;<\/p>\n 17.6. remove from their defamation legislation any increased protection for public figures, in accordance with the Court\u2019s case law, and in particular calls on:<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n 17.7. ensure that under their legislation persons pursued for defamation have appropriate means of defending themselves, in particular means based on establishing the truth of their assertions and on the general interest, and calls in particular on France to amend or repeal Article 35 of its law of 29 July 1881 which provides for unjustified exceptions preventing the defendant from establishing the truth of the alleged defamation;<\/p>\n 17.8. set reasonable and proportionate maxima for awards for damages and interest in defamation cases so that the viability of a defendant media organ is not placed at risk;<\/p>\n 17.9. provide appropriate legal guarantees against awards for damages and interest that are disproportionate to the actual injury;\u201d<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 10 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 20. The applicant complained that his criminal conviction for slanderous defamation had violated his right to freedom of expression, as provided in Article 10 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.<\/p>\n 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.\u201d<\/p>\n A. Admissibility<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The parties\u2019 arguments<\/em><\/p>\n 21. The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the available domestic remedies. In particular, in his appeal on points of law to the Court of Cassation, the applicant had failed to invoke his rights under Article 10 of the Convention or complain of being given a disproportionate sentence. Therefore, he had not given the Court of Cassation the opportunity to examine a possible violation of the Convention.<\/p>\n 22. The applicant contested that argument. He argued that he had brought to the attention of the domestic authorities, facts that had constituted a violation of his rights under Article 10. He had advanced the argument that his statements had constituted value judgments, not facts. Even though he had not explicitly referred to Article 10 of the Convention, he had in substance raised such a complaint before the Court of Cassation. In particular, he had included in his appeal on points of law the argument that what he had written had been based on his legitimate interest as managing director of the company. To that effect he had cited Article 367 of the Criminal Code, under which his actions should have remain unpunished, given that his actions and been undertaken in pursuit of a matter of legitimate interest.<\/p>\n 2. The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n 23. The Court reiterates that the purpose of the rule on the exhaustion of domestic remedies is to afford Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right violations that they are alleged to have committed before those allegations are submitted to it (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v.France [GC], no. 25803\/94, \u00a7 74, ECHR\u00a01999-V, and Remli v.\u00a0France, 23\u00a0April 1996, \u00a7 33, Reports of Judgments and Decisions\u00a01996-II).<\/p>\n 24. The rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies must be applied with some degree of flexibility and without excessive formalism. At the same time, it requires, in principle, that the complaints intended to be made subsequently at international level should have been aired before those same courts \u2013 at least in substance, and in compliance with the formal requirements and time-limits laid down in domestic law (see, among many other authorities, Vu\u010dkovi\u0107 and Others v. Serbia (preliminary objection) [GC], nos. 17153\/11 and 29 others, \u00a7 72, 25 March 2014, and Gherghina v.\u00a0Romania (dec.) [GC], no. 42219\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 84-87, 9 July 2015).<\/p>\n 25. It is not necessary for a Convention right to be explicitly raised in domestic proceedings, provided that the complaint is raised \u201cat least in substance\u201d (see Fressoz and Roire v. France [GC], no. 29183\/95, \u00a7\u00a039, ECHR 1999-I, and Azinas v. Cyprus [GC], no. 56679\/00, \u00a7\u00a038, ECHR\u00a02004\u2011III). If the applicant has not relied on the provisions of the Convention, he or she must have raised arguments to the same or like effect on the basis of domestic law, in order to have given the national courts the opportunity to redress the alleged breach in the first place (see G\u00e4fgen v.\u00a0Germany [GC], no. 22978\/05, \u00a7 142, ECHR 2010, and Karapanagiotou and Others v. Greece, no. 1571\/08, \u00a7 29, 28 October 2010).<\/p>\n 26. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant did provide the Court of Cassation with a complete account of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal and presented arguments that were in substance relevant to Article 10 of the Convention. In particular, he argued that what he had written in his official document had constituted value judgments and that they had not been written with any intention to insult, but rather on the basis of his legitimate interest, as managing director of the company, in protecting its interests (see paragraph 14 above). The Court of Cassation, for its part, examined (to the extent of its powers) the applicant\u2019s arguments and dismissed them (see paragraph 15 above).<\/p>\n 27. In view of the foregoing, the Court is satisfied that through the arguments that he raised before the Court of Cassation, the applicant did complain, albeit implicitly, that his right to freedom of expression had been breached. In doing so, he raised, at least in substance, a complaint under Article 10 of the Convention before the Court of Cassation, and the court examined that complaint. It follows that he provided the national authorities with the opportunity that is in principle intended to be afforded to Contracting States by Article\u00a035\u00a0\u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention \u2013 namely, the opportunity to put right the violations alleged against them (see Mur\u0161i\u0107 v.\u00a0Croatia [GC], no. 7334\/13, \u00a7\u00a072, ECHR 2016). The Government\u2019s objection concerning the alleged failure to exhaust the domestic remedies must therefore be dismissed.<\/p>\n 28. The Court notes that the application is neither manifestly ill\u2011founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article\u00a035 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n B. Merits<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The parties\u2019 arguments<\/em><\/p>\n 29. The applicant argued that the sentence imposed on him had not been fair, given the fact that his value judgments had had a sufficiently factual basis. In particular, the applicant had put forward arguments before the domestic courts to the effect that L.P. had failed to adequately inform him of the dates of trial hearings scheduled for January 2008 and that it had been only by chance that he had learned of them from the lawyer of the other party.<\/p>\n 30. The applicant had acted in his capacity as managing director and had listed the impugned characterisations \u2013 that is to say that L.P.\u2019s conduct had been unprofessional and contrary to ethics \u2013 in an official document addressed solely to L.P. That document had not been designed to offend her, but rather simply to protect the company\u2019s interests and had not been intended for sharing with the general public. The applicant argued that according to domestic case-law (decision no. 487\/2019 of the Court of Cassation), a bailiff who served official documents could not be considered to be a third person, and his knowledge of the document did not constitute the dissemination of allegations.<\/p>\n 31. In that official document, the applicant had requested that L.P. inform the company of any legal cases pending, pursuant to her legal obligation. The comments contained in the official document had not targeted her personally but rather in her capacity as a lawyer. The applicant had repeatedly called on L.P., as the company\u2019s legal advisor, to inform the company of any pending legal issues, but to no avail; he had thus been under considerable psychological strain and had had an obligation as managing director towards the company to protect its interests.<\/p>\n 32. The Government argued that freedom of expression did not include the right to disseminate facts that could injure the reputation of another person \u2013 especially if those facts were false. The domestic courts, following an evidentiary procedure, had concluded that the applicant had disseminated to an indefinite number of people false information that could have harmed the reputation of L.P. The applicant had known that what he had stated was untrue. Therefore, the applicant\u2019s statements had exceeded the permissible limits of the right to freedom of expression, as he had disproportionately injured L.P.\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n 33. In any event, assuming that there had indeed been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression, that interference had been prescribed by law \u2013 namely, Articles 362 and 363 of the Criminal Code, which had been well known and of a clearly defined scope, and had served a legitimate aim (that is to say the protection of L.P.\u2019s reputation). L.P. was not a political figure, and the wider limits of criticism did not therefore apply to her. Nor had the applicant\u2019s statements contributed to a\u00a0debate of general interest that could have justified a degree of exaggeration or even provocation.<\/p>\n 34. Lastly, the interference had been necessary in a democratic society. The domestic courts \u2013 after taking into account all the elements of the dispute and after conducting a fair trial, in conformity with Article 6 of the Convention \u2013 had struck a fair balance between the competing interests. The sentence imposed on the applicant had been proportionate and could not be considered excessive. Indeed. the applicant had not argued that the sentence had been too severe.<\/p>\n 2. The Court\u2019s assessment<\/em><\/p>\n 35. The Court considers that the applicant\u2019s conviction amounted to \u201cinterference by public authority\u201d with his right to freedom of expression and that the Government\u2019s arguments should be examined in relation to the restrictions on freedom of expression provided in paragraph 2 of Article\u00a010. Such interference will infringe the Convention if it does not meet the requirements of that paragraph. It must therefore be determined whether it was \u201cprescribed by law\u201d, pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in paragraph 2, and was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d in order to achieve them.<\/p>\n (a) Prescribed by law and \u201clegitimate aim\u201d<\/p>\n 36. The Court finds that the interference in question was prescribed by law (namely, Articles 363 and 367 of the Criminal Code), and that it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others, within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2.<\/p>\n (b) Necessary in a democratic society<\/p>\n 37. In the present case, what is at issue is whether the interference was \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n (i) General principles<\/p>\n 38. The general principles for assessing the necessity of an interference with the exercise of freedom of expression have been frequently reaffirmed by the Court since the judgment in Handyside v. the United Kingdom (7\u00a0December 1976, Series A no. 24), were summarised in Stoll v.\u00a0Switzerland ([GC], no. 69698\/01, \u00a7 101, ECHR 2007-V) and were restated more recently in Pentik\u00e4inen v. Finland ([GC], no. 11882\/10, \u00a7\u00a087, ECHR 2015),B\u00e9dat v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 56925\/08, \u00a7\u00a048, 29\u00a0March 2016), and Med\u017elisIslamskeZajedniceBr\u010dko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina([GC], no. 17224\/11, \u00a7 75, 27 June 2017):<\/p>\n \u201c(i) Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual\u2019s self-fulfilment. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10, it is applicable not only to \u2018information\u2019 or \u2018ideas\u2019 that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no \u2018democratic society\u2019. As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, which … must, however, be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly …<\/p>\n (ii) The adjective \u2018necessary\u2019, within the meaning of Article 10 \u00a7 2, implies the existence of a \u2018pressing social need\u2019. The Contracting States have a certain margin of appreciation in assessing whether such a need exists, but it goes hand in hand with European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by an independent court. The Court is therefore empowered to give the final ruling on whether a \u2018restriction\u2019 is reconcilable with freedom of expression as protected by Article 10.<\/p>\n (iii) The Court\u2019s task, in exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, is not to take the place of the competent national authorities but rather to review under Article 10 the decisions they delivered pursuant to their power of appreciation. This does not mean that the supervision is limited to ascertaining whether the respondent State exercised its discretion reasonably, carefully and in good faith; what the Court has to do is to look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole and determine whether it was \u2018proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued\u2019 and whether the reasons adduced by the national authorities to justify it are \u2018relevant and sufficient\u2019… In doing so, the Court has to satisfy itself that the national authorities applied standards which were in conformity with the principles embodied in Article\u00a010 and, moreover, that they relied on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts …\u201d<\/p>\n 39. When called upon to examine the necessity of an interference in a\u00a0democratic society in the interests of the \u201cprotection of the reputation or rights of others\u201d, the Court may be required to ascertain whether the domestic authorities struck a fair balance in seeking to protect two values guaranteed by the Convention that may have come into conflict with each other in certain cases \u2013 namely, on the one hand, freedom of expression protected by Article 10 and, on the other, the right to respect for private life, as enshrined in Article 8 (see MGN Limited v. the United Kingdom, no.\u00a039401\/04, \u00a7\u00a0142, 18\u00a0January 2011). In order for Article 8 to come into play, however, an attack on a person\u2019s reputation must attain a certain level of seriousness and be carried out in a manner causing prejudice to personal enjoyment of the right to respect for private life (see B\u00e9dat, cited above, \u00a7\u00a072; Axel\u00a0Springer\u00a0AG v. Germany[GC], no. 39954\/08, \u00a7 83, 7 February 2012; and A. v.\u00a0Norway, no. 28070\/06, \u00a7\u00a064, 9 April 2009). On the other hand, Article\u00a08 cannot be relied on in order to complain of a loss of reputation that is the foreseeable consequence of one\u2019s own actions, such as, for example, the commission of a criminal offence (see Axel Springer AG, cited above, \u00a7 83, and Sidabras and D\u017eiautas v.\u00a0Lithuania, nos. 55480\/00 and\u00a059330\/00, \u00a7\u00a049, ECHR 2004\u2011VIII).<\/p>\n 40. In instances where, in accordance with the criteria set out above, the interests of the \u201cprotection of the reputation or rights of others\u201d bring Article 8 into play, the Court may be required to verify whether the domestic authorities struck a fair balance when protecting the two values guaranteed by the Convention \u2013 namely, on the one hand, freedom of expression (as protected by Article\u00a010) and, on the other, the right to respect for private life, as enshrined in Article 8. The general principles applicable to the balancing of these rights were recently summarised in Perin\u00e7ek v.\u00a0Switzerland [GC] (no. 27510\/08, \u00a7 198, ECHR\u00a02015 (extracts)), as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c(i) In such cases, the outcome should not vary depending on whether the application was brought under Article 8 by the person who was the subject of the statement or under Article 10 by the person who has made it, because in principle the rights under these Articles deserve equal respect.<\/p>\n (ii) The choice of the means to secure compliance with Article 8 in the sphere of the relations of individuals between themselves is in principle a matter that falls within the High Contracting Party\u2019s margin of appreciation, whether the obligations on it are positive or negative. There are different ways of ensuring respect for private life and the nature of the obligation will depend on the particular aspect of private life that is at issue.<\/p>\n (iii) Likewise, under Article 10 of the Convention, the High Contracting Parties have a margin of appreciation in assessing whether and to what extent an interference with the right to freedom of expression is necessary.<\/p>\n (iv) The margin of appreciation, however, goes hand in hand with European supervision, embracing both the legislation and the decisions applying it, even those given by independent courts. In exercising its supervisory function, the Court does not have to take the place of the national courts but to review, in the light of the case as a whole, whether their decisions were compatible with the provisions of the Convention relied on.<\/p>\n (v) If the balancing exercise has been carried out by the national authorities in conformity with the criteria laid down in the Court\u2019s case-law, the Court would require strong reasons to substitute its view for theirs.\u201d<\/p>\n 41. Where the right to freedom of expression is being balanced against the right to respect for private life, the relevant criteria laid down in the Court\u2019s case-law include: (a) whether a contribution was made to a debate of public interest, (b)\u00a0how well-known the person concerned is, (c) the subject of the news report in question, (d) the prior conduct of the person concerned, and (e) the content, form and consequences of the publication of the material in question. Where it examines an application lodged under Article\u00a010, the Court will also examine (f) the way in which the information was obtained, and its veracity, and (g) the severity of the penalty imposed on the journalists or publishers (see, among other authorities, Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associ\u00e9sv. France [GC], no. 40454\/07, \u00a7 93, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).<\/p>\n 42. In light of the Court\u2019s case-law relating to disparaging statements against public officials made in written complaints to the authorities the Court examines the proportionality of the interference by looking at (a) the nature and exact manner of communication of the statements; (b) the respective context within which they were made; (c) the extent to which they affected the person concerned; and (d) the severity of the sanctions imposed on the applicant (see Zakharov v.\u00a0Russia, no.\u00a014881\/03, 5 October 2006;Kazakov v. Russia, no. 1758\/02, 18December 2008; Sofranschi v.\u00a0Moldova, no. 34690\/05, 21 December 2010; Siryk v.\u00a0Ukraine, no.\u00a06428\/07, 31 March 2011; and Marin Kostov v.\u00a0Bulgaria, no. 13801\/07, 24\u00a0July 2012).,<\/p>\n 43. Where the national authorities have weighed up the interests at stake, in compliance with the criteria laid down by the Court\u2019s case-law, weighty reasons are required if it is to substitute its view for that of the domestic courts (see MGN Limited, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 150 and\u00a0155; Palomo S\u00e1nchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955\/06 and 3 others, \u00a7 57, ECHR 2011; and, more recently, Haldimann and Others v.\u00a0Switzerland, no. 21830\/09, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a054-55, ECHR 2015). In exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court must look at the impugned interference in the light of the case as a whole, including the content of the remarks held against the applicant and the context within which they were made (see Radobuljac v. Croatia, no.\u00a051000\/11, \u00a7 57, 28 June 2016).<\/p>\n (ii) Application of the above principles to the present case<\/p>\n 44. In order to determine the approach to be applied in the present case, the Court has to look at the interference complained of in the light of the case as a whole, including the form in which the remarks held against the applicants were conveyed, their content, and the context within which the impugned statements were made (see Stankiewicz and Others v.\u00a0Poland, no.\u00a048723\/07, \u00a7 61, 14 October 2014, andNikula v. Finland, no.\u00a031611\/96, \u00a7\u00a7 44 and 46, ECHR 2002\u2011II).<\/p>\n 45. The Court notes that it has not been submitted (nor does it appear) that the accusations made against L.P. in the above-mentioned official document concerned conduct that was regarded as criminal under domestic law (contrast White v. Sweden, no. 42435\/02, \u00a7 25, 19 September 2006; Sanchez Cardenas v. Norway, no. 12148\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 37-39, 4 October 2007; Pfeifer v.\u00a0Austria, no. 12556\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 47-48, 15 November 2007; and A.\u00a0v.\u00a0Norway, cited above, \u00a7\u00a073). However, it finds that accusing L.P. of being unprofessional and of engaging in behaviour contrary to ethics in a\u00a0document made known to a restricted number of persons was not only capable of tarnishing her reputation, but also of causing her harm in both her professional and social environment. Accordingly, the accusations attained a\u00a0level of seriousness sufficient to harm L.P.\u2019s rights under Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Bergens Tidende and Others v. Norway, no.\u00a026132\/95, \u00a7 51, ECHR 2000\u2011IV, and Kanellopoulou v. Greece, no.\u00a028504\/05, \u00a7 38, 11 October 2007, both of which concerned accusations made against doctors). The Court must therefore ascertain whether the domestic authorities struck a fair balance between the two values guaranteed by the Convention \u2013 namely, on the one hand, the applicant\u2019s freedom of expression, as protected by Article\u00a010, and, on the other, L.P.\u2019s right to respect for her reputation under Article 8 (see Axel Springer AG [GC], cited above, \u00a7 84).<\/p>\n 46. Where national jurisdictionshave carried out a balancing exercise in relation to those rights, the Court has to examine whether, during their assessment, they applied the criteria established in its case-law on the subject (see Axel Springer AG, cited above, \u00a7 88) and whether the reasons that led them to take the impugned decisions were sufficient and relevant such as to justify the interference with the right to freedom of expression (see Cicad v.Switzerland, no. 17676\/09, \u00a7 52, 7 June 2016). It will do so by examining those criteria established in its case-law that are of relevance to the present case. In this regard, the Court notes that it has not yet had the opportunity to rule in cases of defamation arising from statements in private documents between individuals that were not meant by their author to be publicly disseminated but which were made known to a restricted number of persons. However, it has dealt with disparaging statements made against public officials in written complaints to the authorities (see paragraph\u00a042 above). Although different features become relevant when considering the quality of the addressee, the Court observes that the structure of the behavior in both types of cases is the same, that is to say the allegations were included in documents not made available publicly (see Zakharov, cited above, \u00a7 23). Therefore, some core principles developed within the context of that case-law apply, mutatis mutandis, in the present case.<\/p>\n (1) The nature and the exact manner of communication of the statements<\/p>\n 47. The Court reiterates that in order to assess whether an impugned statement was justified, a distinction needs to be made between statements of fact and\u00a0value judgments. While the existence of facts can be demonstrated, the truth of\u00a0value judgments\u00a0is not susceptible of proof. The requirement to prove the truth of a value judgment is impossible to fulfil and infringes freedom of opinion itself, which is a fundamental part of the right secured by Article 10. The classification of a statement as a fact or as a\u00a0value judgment is a matter that in the first place falls within the margin of appreciation of the national authorities \u2013 in particular the domestic courts. However, even where a statement amounts to a value judgment, there must exist a sufficient factual basis to support it, failing which it will be excessive (see, for example,\u00a0Pedersen and Baadsgaard v. Denmark [GC], no.\u00a049017\/99, \u00a7 76, ECHR 2004\u2011XI). As a general rule, the Court considers that the necessity of a link between a value judgment and its supporting facts may vary from case to case according to the specific circumstances (see De Haes and Gijsels v. Belgium, 24\u00a0February 1997, \u00a7 47, Reports\u00a01997-I, and Feldek v. Slovakia, no. 29032\/95, \u00a7\u00a086, ECHR 2001\u2011VIII).<\/p>\n 48. In addition, the Court has had occasion to say that it is open to those authorities to adopt measures intended to respond appropriately and without excess to defamatory accusations devoid of foundation or formulated in bad faith (see Castells v. Spain, 23 April 1992, \u00a7 46, Series A no. 236).<\/p>\n 49. As regards the nature of the comments in the present case, as noted above the statements amounted to allegations of misconduct on the part of the former lawyer of the company, Ms L.P., in the performance of her duties. In particular, the applicant argued that she had failed to properly inform him, as the new managing director of the company, of the pending legal cases involving the company and that that amounted to unprofessional and unethical behaviour (see paragraph 9 above).<\/p>\n 50. The Court notes that the domestic courts classified the above\u2011mentioned statements as \u201cfacts\u201d and \u2013 following the above\u2011mentioned evidentiary procedure\u2013 deemed them to be false (see paragraph 13 above). However, they did not provide convincing reasons for that conclusion.Rather, they merely assessed whether the expressions used in the official document had been capable of causing damage to the plaintiff\u2019s personality rights and reputation (see,mutatis mutandis,I\u00a0Avgi\u00a0Publishing and Press Agency S.A. and Karis v. Greece, no.\u00a015909\/06, \u00a7\u00a033, 5\u00a0June 2008). However, the role of the domestic courts in such proceedings does not include indicating to the defendant what style he should have adopted in exercising his right to criticism, however caustic the remarks in question may have been.<\/p>\n 51. In view of the limited scope of the domestic courts\u2019 reasoning in this respect, the Court is not persuaded by their approach and cannot share their conclusion for the following reasons.\u00a0Given the wording of the applicant\u2019s statements and the explanations that he gave before the domestic courts, the Court is of the opinion that the applicant\u2019s comments contain a combination of\u00a0value judgments\u00a0and statements of fact. It is persuaded that the characterisations that the applicant attributed to L.P. \u2013 namely that her conduct had been contrary to ethics and unprofessional, and that she had acted in a spirit of revenge owing to her dismissal by the company \u2013 amounted to value judgements. As regards the rest of the statements contained in the official document (namely that L.P. had still not fully informed the applicant about all pending legal cases), those did not constitute merely value judgments but also (as the Court of Appeal indicated) allegations of fact that supported his value judgments. In this regard, the Court notes that even private documents disseminated to a restricted number of persons need to have some factual basis (see Bilan v.\u00a0Croatia (dec.), no. 57860\/14, \u00a7 37, 20 October 2020). The question, therefore, is whether a sufficiently accurate and reliable factual basis proportionate to the nature and degree of the applicant\u2019s statements and allegations can be established (seeReznikv. Russia, no.\u00a04977\/05, \u00a7 46, 4\u00a0April 2013,\u00a0and\u00a0Rungainis\u00a0v. Latvia, no.\u00a040597\/08, \u00a7\u00a063, 14\u00a0June 2018).<\/p>\n 52. In this regard the Court notes that the domestic courts tried to assess whether the applicant\u2019s statements had been true or false and concluded that none of the evidence adduced supported the applicant\u2019s allegations (see paragraph 13 above). However, the Court notes that the applicant submitted to those courts various arguments that supported his allegations (for example, that (i) the date of an upcoming trial hearing had been erroneously indicated as 15\u00a0February 2008, whereas in reality it had been scheduled for 15\u00a0January 2008 and (ii) he had only by chance been informed of the real date by the opposite party\u2019s lawyer \u2013 see paragraph 12 above). Nevertheless, the domestic courts\u2019 judgments contain no specific reasoning rebutting the applicant\u2019s arguments; the only relevant passage refers to the sworn testimony given by the new legal advisor, which the Court of Appeal did not consider relevant (see paragraph 13 above).<\/p>\n 53. The Court cannot assess the truthfulness of the applicant\u2019s allegations in respect of the incompleteness of the information supplied by L.P. regarding pending legal cases, as this is a task entrusted to the relevant national authorities. Nevertheless, it considers that the dismissal of the relevant arguments was not justified by sufficient reasoning and that the domestic courts thus failed to classify the applicant\u2019s statements as value judgments (which by their nature are not susceptible of proof) and to determine whether they had had a sufficient factual basis. It follows that the domestic courts did not consider carefully the applicant\u2019s arguments regarding his statements, namely that, in his submission, he had expressed his personal, subjective opinion, which had been based on what he had perceived as \u201ctrue facts\u201d. Accordingly, the Court cannot but note that the domestic courts did not apply rigorously one of the key standards established in its case-law regarding the right to freedom of expression (see Tolmachev v. Russia, no. 42182\/11, \u00a7 50, 2 June 2020).<\/p>\n 54. As regards the way in which the applicant expressed himself, the Court notes that while the applicant\u2019s allegations concerning L.P.\u2019s professional behaviour were quite serious, the language used was not strong, vexatious or immoderate. The Court\u2019s case-law draws a clear distinction between criticism and insult in terms of whether sanctions may be justified for such statements (see Ska\u0142ka v. Poland,no. 43425\/98, \u00a7\u00a034, 27\u00a0May 2003; Uj v. Hungary, no. 23954\/10, \u00a7 20, 19 July 2011; andPalomo\u00a0S\u00e1nchez and Others, cited above, \u00a7\u00a067).<\/p>\n 55. Turning to the manner of communication of the statements, the Court observes that the official document was sent privately, and the applicant did not publish or otherwise make his allegations available to the outside world. The Court accordingly notes that the defamation claim was born of the applicant\u2019s correspondence with L.P. rather than material published in the media and that the impugned statements were not therefore made publicly (see the above-cited cases of Bezymyannyy, \u00a7 39, Siryk, \u00a7\u00a045, and Marin Kostov, \u00a7 46). For instance, they were not made orally in front of members of the public (contrast Janowski v. Poland [GC], no.\u00a025716\/94, \u00a7\u00a033, ECHR 1999-I), or in letters addressed or made available to the public or the media (contrast Coutant v. France (dec.), no. 17155\/03, 24\u00a0January 2008, and Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369\/10, \u00a7\u00a0140, 23 April 2015). The fact that they were never made public is relevant, according to the pertinent case-law, to an assessment of the proportionality of the interference under Article 10 of the Convention (see Yankov v. Bulgaria, no.\u00a039084\/97, \u00a7\u00a0141, ECHR 2003\u2011XII (extracts)). Nor were the statements made outside the proper channels of complaint (contrast Puzinas v.\u00a0Lithuania (no.\u00a02), no.\u00a063767\/00, \u00a7\u00a7 30 and 34, 9 January 2007). Their negative impact, if any, on L.P.\u2019s reputation was thus quite limited.<\/p>\n (2) The context within which the statements were made<\/p>\n 56. The Court notes that the remarks of the applicant were made within the context of a dispute between him, as the managing director of the company, and L.P., in her capacity as former legal advisor to the company. The applicant was engaged in serving numerous official documents to L.P. (see paragraph 7 above). L.P. in her turn, replied with serving an official document to the applicant in which she informed him that she would come at the company\u2019s premises on that same day in order to hand over the files relating to the pending legal cases in which the company was involved (see paragraph 8 above). That document was served more than one and a half months after the applicant had assumed his duties on 5 November 2007. It appears, therefore, that there was already tension between the applicant and L.P., with the former insisting that he had not been fully informed of all pending court cases, even after the company had dismissed L.P. from her duties, and with the latter participating in the exchange of official documents contesting his allegations and coming to the company premises (without giving sufficient notice) only after the passage of a considerable amount of time in order to hand over the files relating to pending legal issues facing the company (see paragraph 8 above).<\/p>\n 57. In this regard, the Court notes that there is nothing in the domestic courts\u2019 reasoning to indicate that they took into consideration the ongoing dispute between the applicant and the plaintiff. It follows that the domestic courts failed to assess the context within which the applicant\u2019s statements had been made, even though the applicant had provided a full history of his dispute with L.P. (see paragraph 12 above).<\/p>\n (3) The extent to which the statements affected the person concerned<\/p>\n 58. The Court has already noted that the applicant\u2019s allegations were susceptible of tarnishing L.P.\u2019s professional and social reputation (see paragraph 45 above). That said, the Court reiterates that the comments were made in a private document that was not intended for public dissemination. Contrary to the domestic courts\u2019 assessment, it cannot be ascertained that the contents of that document became known to numerous people, such as the lawyer who drafted it, the bailiff who served it or the residents of the building in which it was served. In particular, the lawyer and the bailiff became aware of the content of the document when carrying out their duties. As regards the residents of the above-mentioned building, the Court observes that under Article 121 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the procedure for posting a document on a door requires that the document be placed in a sealed envelope; therefore, the content of the document concerned in this case cannot possibly have been known to the residents of the building. The Court thus notes that in any event, the domestic courts failed to assess correctly the limited impact that the document could possibly have had on L.P.\u2019s reputation.<\/p>\n (4) The severity of the sanctions imposed on the applicant<\/p>\n 59. Lastly, the nature and severity of the penalty imposed are factors to be taken into account when assessing the proportionality of the interference (see Katrami v. Greece, no. 19331\/05, \u00a7 38, 6 December 2007; Mika v.\u00a0Greece, no. 10347\/10, \u00a7 32, 19 December 2013; and Athanasios Makris v.\u00a0Greece, no. 55135\/10, \u00a7 38, 9 March 2017). In the instant case, the Court takes into account the fact that the applicant was sentenced to a five-month suspended prison sentence. In that regard, the Court reiterates that while the use of criminal\u2011law sanctions in defamation cases is not in itself disproportionate (see Radio France and Others v. France, no. 53984\/00, \u00a7\u00a040, ECHR 2004\u2011II; Lindon, Otchakovsky-Laurens and July v. France [GC], nos. 21279\/02 and 36448\/02, \u00a7 47, ECHR 2007\u2011IV;and Ziembi\u0144ski v.\u00a0Poland (no. 2), no. 1799\/07, \u00a7 46, 5 July 2016), a criminal conviction is a\u00a0serious sanction, having regard to the existence of other means of intervention and rebuttal, particularly through civil remedies (see Frisk and Jensen v. Denmark, no. 19657\/12, \u00a7 77, 5 December 2017). The Court has emphasised on many occasions that the imposition of a prison sentence in defamation cases will be compatible with freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, only in exceptional circumstances \u2013 notably where other fundamental rights have been seriously impaired, as, for example, in the case of hate speech or incitement to violence (see, mutatis mutandis, Cump\u0103n\u0103 and Maz\u0103re v.\u00a0Romania [GC], no.\u00a033348\/96, \u00a7 115, ECHR 2004\u2011XI, and Mika, cited above, \u00a7 33).<\/p>\n 60. The serious sanctions imposed on the applicant could only be regarded as necessary in exceptional circumstances. However, in the instant case, given the nature of the complaints, the manner of their communication, the context within which they were made, and the effect that they could possibly have on L.P., the Court is not satisfied that this was so and that therefore, the circumstances of the instant case \u2013 a private dispute between the managing director of a company and that company\u2019s former legal advisor, which did not reach the public \u2013 presented no justification for the imposition of a prison sentence. Such a sanction, by its very nature, will inevitably have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, and the notion that the applicant\u2019s sentence was in fact suspended does not alter that conclusion, particularly given the fact that the conviction itself was not expunged (see Paraskevopoulos v. Greece, no. 64184\/11, \u00a7 42, 28 June 2018;Marchenko v. Ukraine, no. 4063\/04, \u00a7\u00a052, 19 February 2009; and Malisiewicz-G\u0105sior v. Poland, no. 43797\/98, \u00a7\u00a067, 6 April 2006).<\/p>\n (5) Conclusion<\/p>\n 61. Theabove elementsleadthe Court to conclude thatthereasons adduced by thedomestic courts to justify the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression were not \u201crelevant and sufficient\u201d. The Court is mindful of the fundamentally subsidiary role of the Convention system (see Dubsk\u00e1 and Krejzov\u00e1 v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos.\u00a028859\/11 and 28473\/12, \u00a7 175, ECHR 2016). Faced, however,\u00a0with the domestic courts\u2019\u00a0failure to\u00a0provide\u00a0relevant and sufficient reasons to justify the interference in question, the Court finds that they cannot be said to have applied standards that were \u201cin conformity with the principles embodied in Article\u00a010 of the Convention\u201d or to have \u201cbased themselves on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts\u201d.\u00a0The\u00a0Court\u00a0accordingly concludes\u00a0that the interference with the applicant\u2019s right to freedom of expression was not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d.<\/p>\n 62. There has therefore been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n 63. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n A. Damage<\/strong><\/p>\n 64. The applicant claimed 50,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non\u2011pecuniary damage, relying on various consequences that his criminal conviction had had for his personal and professional life.<\/p>\n 65. The Government argued that the finding of a violation should constitute sufficient compensation for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant, especially given the financial situation of the country. In any event, the amount requested was excessive and unjustified in view of the circumstances of the case, as well as the fact that the applicant had failed to invoke Article 10 of the Convention before the domestic courts.<\/p>\n 66. The Court, making its assessment on an equitable basis, awards the applicant EUR 9,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that may be chargeable.<\/p>\n B. Costs and expenses<\/strong><\/p>\n 67. The applicant also claimed EUR 4,360.35 for the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts and EUR 6,200 for those incurred before the Court, submitting a legal agreement that he had concluded with his lawyer stipulating that the amount owed should be deposited in the lawyer\u2019s bank account at the end of the proceedings.<\/p>\n 68. The Government submitted that the amount requested by the applicant as regards the costs and expenses incurred before the domestic courts was excessive. As regards the legal agreement governing the legal services provided in respect of the proceedings before the Court, the Government observed that any such agreement between an applicant and his lawyer did not bind the Court to any particular action.<\/p>\n 69. According to the Court\u2019s case-law, an applicant is entitled to the reimbursement of costs and expenses only in so far as it has been shown that these were actually and necessarily incurred and are reasonable as to quantum (see, for example, Editions Plon v. France, no. 58148\/00, \u00a7 64, ECHR\u00a02004-IV). In the present case, regard being had to the documents in its possession and the above criteria, the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum of EUR 3,000 for costs and expenses incurred in respect of the domestic proceedings and EUR 1,200 incurred in respect of the proceedings before the Court \u2013 a total of EUR\u00a04,200, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n C. Default interest<\/strong><\/p>\n 70. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the complaint under Article10 admissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;<\/p>\n 3. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final, in accordance with Article\u00a044\u00a0\u00a7\u00a02 of the Convention, the following amounts:<\/p>\n (i) EUR 9,000 (nine thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;<\/p>\n (ii) EUR 4,200 (four thousand two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a\u00a0rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period, plus three percentage points;<\/p>\n 4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant\u2019s claim for just satisfaction.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 25 March 2021, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Renata Degener \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Ksenija Turkovi\u0107
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nLinos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
\nAlena Pol\u00e1\u010dkov\u00e1,
\nP\u00e9ter Paczolay,
\nRaffaele Sabato,
\nLorraine Schembri Orland, judges,
\nand Renata Degener, Section Registrar,<\/p>\n![\"INTRODUCTION\"](\"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/INTRODUCTION.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nInsult<\/p>\n
\nDefamation<\/p>\n
\nSlanderous defamation<\/p>\n
\nRegistrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n