FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 10224/14 Efthymios TSAKNAKIS against Greece

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 3 March 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Armen Harutyunyan, President, Pere Pastor Vilanova, Pauliine Koskelo, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 January 2014,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 August 2019 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the fact that the applicant did not reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

1 . The applicant, Mr Efthymios Tsaknakis , is a Greek national, who was born in 1952 and lives in Grevena . He was represented before the Court by Ms A. Zoi-Tsigara , a lawyer practising in Trikala.

2 . The Greek Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr I. K. Chalkias , President of the State Legal Council.

3 . The application had been communicated to the Government on 13 November 2018 .

THE LAW

4 . The applicant complained about the fact that he had been found liable in civil defamation proceedings. He relied on Article 10 of the Convention.

5 . After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 16 August 2019 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

6 . The declaration provided as follows:

“In the above-mentioned case the Government proposed a friendly settlement to the applicant, which was rejected by him.

The Greek Government would wish to acknowledge, by way of unilateral declaration, that the ruling of civil courts that the applicant was liable in civil defamation proceedings on account of a passage relating to a politician and should compensate him was incompatible with the applicant ’ s right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights (“Convention”).

If the Court strikes this case out of the list, the Government is willing to offer to the applicant compensation in the amount of EUR 4,500 (four thousand five hundred euros). This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, is free of any taxes that may be applicable and will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from the expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”

7 . The applicant, who was invited by a letter of 20 September 2019 to submit any comments he wished to make until 18 October 2019, made no comments on the Government ’ s unilateral declaration. The Court will regard his silence as an implied refusal of the Government ’ s offer (see Załuska and Rogalska v. Poland and 398 other applications ( dec. ), nos. 53491/10 and 72286/10, § 48, 20 June 2017).

8 . The Court re iterates that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

9 . It also reiterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

10 . To this end, the Court has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objections) [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Sp. z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).

11 . The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Greece, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 10 of the Convention (see, for example, Paraskevopoulos v. Greece , no. 64184/11, 28 June 2018; Kapsis and Danikas v. Greece , no. 52137/12, 19 January 2017; Koutsoliontos and Pantazis v. Greece , nos. 54608/09 and 54590/09 , 22 September 2015; and I Avgi Publishing and Press Agency S.A. and Karis v. Greece , no. 15909/06, 5 June 2008).

12 . Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

13 . Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

14 . Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

15 . In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list .

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article 10 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 26 March 2020 .

Renata Degener Armen Harutyunyan Deputy Registrar President