Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

CASE OF HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECECONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: December 16, 1992

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

CASE OF HADJIANASTASSIOU v. GREECECONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: December 16, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE DE MEYER

( Translation )

Like the other members of the Chamber I take the view that there has not been a breach of the right to freedom of expression in this case, but my reasons are simpler than those set out in paragraphs 39 to 47 of the judgment. They are as follows:

1. The applicant was convicted and sentenced under Article 97 para. 2 of the Military Criminal Code [1] for having disclosed secret information of minor importance [2] .

2. Because the members of the armed forces have special "duties and responsibilities", they must of necessity be barred from communicating to third parties, unless duly authorised to do so, information and ideas of the kind in issue in the present case, even if such ideas and information are the fruit of their own work.

This is particularly the case where the information and ideas in question have been classified as secret by the competent authorities.

3. Where military personnel are found to have contravened this prohibition, it is for the courts within whose jurisdiction they fall to apply to them the penalties laid down by law.

4. In the present case it has not been shown that, in their treatment of the applicant, the Greek courts misused the powers vested in them in this sphere.

[*]  The case is numbered 69/1991/321/393.  The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).  The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[*]   As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came into force on 1 January 1990 .

[*]  Note by the Registrar: for practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (volume 252 of Series A of the Publications of the Court), but a copy of the Commission's report is available from the registry.

[1] See paragraph 21 of the judgment.

[2] See paragraph 13 of the judgment.

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255