Information Note on the Court’s case-law 215

February 2018

Alpha Doryforiki Tileorasi Anonymi Etairia v. Greece - 72562/10

Judgment 22.2.2018 [Section I]

Article 10

Article 10-1

Freedom of expression

Covert surveillance of public figure for journalistic purposes: violation; no violation

Facts – The applicant company is the owner of a Greek television channel ALPHA which broadcast two television shows in whi ch three videos that had been filmed with a hidden camera were shown. In the first video, A.C., then a member of the Hellenic Parliament and chairman of the inter-party committee on electronic gambling, was shown entering a gambling arcade and playing on t wo machines. The second video showed a meeting between A.C. and associates of the television host during which the first video was shown to A.C. The third video showed a meeting between A.C. and the television host in the latter’s office.

In response to t he broadcasts the National Radio and Television Council ordered the applicant company to pay EUR 100,000 for each of the television shows during which the videos were shown and to broadcast the Council’s decision for three consecutive days in its main news show. That decision was upheld by the Minister of Press and Media. The Supreme Administrative Court subsequently dismissed an application by the applicant company for annulment of the decision.

In the Convention proceedings, the applicant company complai ned that the sanctions imposed on it by the National Radio and Television Council had violated its right to freedom of expression, in breach of Article 10 of the Convention.

Law – Article 10: The sanctions imposed on the applicant company for broadcasting the videos constituted an interference with its freedom of expression, however, the interference was “prescribed by law” and served the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and reputation of others, specifically A.C.’s right to respect for his image, w ords and reputation.

Assessing whether the interference was “necessary in a democratic society” the Court considered the report as a whole and agreed with the domestic authorities’ assessment that the subject concerned a matter of public interest. The Cour t noted that AC was a prominent political figure and, although the subject of the report focused on A.C.’s behaviour and not on a general discussion of electronic gambling, it could be legitimately broadcast.

(a) First video – The first video was filmed in a public space in which anyone could have taken a photograph or filmed a video. The domestic authorities should therefore have included in their assessment that, by entering a gambling arcade, A.C. could legitimately have e xpected his conduct to have been closely monitored and even recorded on camera, especially in view of the fact that he was a public figure. The domestic authorities had, therefore, not struck a reasonable balance of proportionality between the measures res tricting the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression and the legitimate aim pursued.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

(b) Second and third videos – Unlike the position with the first video, A.C. had been entitled to have an expectation of p rivacy as regards the second and third videos (having entered private spaces with a view to discussing the recorded incidents) and an expectation that his conversations would not be recorded without his explicit consent.

In the Court’s view, the domestic a uthorities’ conclusion that the applicant company had overstepped the limits of responsible journalism was not unreasonable in so far as the second and third videos were concerned. Distinguishing Haldimann and Others v. Switzerland , the Court noted that the applicant company had made no effort to compensate for the intrusion into A.C.’s private life; on the contrary, the conduct of the journalists in fact suggested that the breach of the Code on Journalistic Ethics and of the Crimin al Code was deliberate. The Court also distinguished the applicant company’s case from Radio Twist a.s. v. Slovakia as it was the applicant company’s employees rather than third parties who were responsible for the deployment of illegal means with a view t o capturing on film A.C.’s gambling and his reaction to the contents of the first video.

The reasons given by the Greek authorities were thus “relevant” and “sufficient” to justify the interference in respect of the second and third videos.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

The Court also unanimously found a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the length of the proceedings before the Supreme Administrative Court.

Article 41: EUR 7,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; EUR 33,000 in respect of pecuniary damage, it being noted that the applicant company had paid only EUR 100,000 of the EUR 200,000 fine.

(See Haldimann and Others v. Switzerland , 21830/09, 24 February 2015, In formation Note 182 ; and Radio Twist a.s. v. Slovakia , 62202/00, 19 December 2006, Information Note 92 )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind t he Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes