Article 11 - Freedom of expression and information
Article 16 - Freedom to conduct a business
Key facts of the case:
The case concerns a petition lodged before the Council of State for the annulment of a Decision by the Greek National Council for Radio and Television (henceforth, NCRT) that imposed the administrative sanction of ‘Recommendation’ to the petitioner – a limited company that owns the tv station concerned. The Recommendation was that the company should not broadcast ads which may encourage behaviours that are obviously detrimental to public health and safety or that foster harmful attitudes towards the environment. On 15.3.2015, at 22:56 h the petitioner broadcasted an advertisement of 30 seconds duration. The NCRT ruled that the advertisement encouraged behaviours harmful to health and safety, as it essentially linked alcohol consumption to the destruction of works of art and other valuables, and, at the same time, presented those consuming the advertised alcoholic beverage as considering the arson, taking place in the room they were in, as absolutely normal and even enjoying it while carelessly having their drink. Therefore, the ads’ message to the audience is that consuming the drink in question renders otherwise dangerous and harmful behaviours safe and socially acceptable, thus encouraging the public to consume it in order to have a unique experience that legitimizes even actions that go beyond what is generally considered as safe and socially acceptable behaviour. The Recommendation issued noted that if the petitioner would not comply, the NCRT would impose stricter sanctions. The petitioner argued that that the contested Recommendation must be annulled on grounds of the NCRT’s unlawful establishment due to the fact that one of its members’ term in office, which should have already expired, had been unlawfully extended beyond a reasonable amount of time. This argument was put forth during oral arguments before the court, as well in written submissions following the case hearing. The court ruled that the allegation concerning the NCRT’s unlawful establishment was inadmissible as it was not included in the original petition for annulment nor in the submission of additional grounds, but was first raised in the oral arguments and subsequently in the aforementioned written submissions. Furthermore, the court found that this is an issue that requires an examination of facts and, thus, dismissed the petitioner’s argument that it should be examined ex officio.
Key legal question:
The key legal question brought forward for the Court’s consideration by the applicant was whether the sanction imposed contravenes Articles 10 of the ECHR and 5 (1), 14 (1),16 (1) and 101 A of the Constitution or other superior legal norms, as considered in the national legal system, namely Articles 11 (1) and (16) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and 19 par. 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Outcome of the case:
The petition was dismissed as unfounded. The court found the contested act to be fully reasoned, since the advertisement did in fact portray arson in an attractive manner, as elaborated in the previous section, thus glorifying a behaviour prescribed in the Criminal Code. It did so by linking the consumption of whiskey with the above criminal offense (arson) and minimizing the severity of this crime and the risks it may pose to health and safety. Against this background, the Recommendation issued, i.e. that the applicant not display ads that may encourage behaviours that are obviously detrimental to health or safety or that foster harmful attitudes towards the environment, is not contrary to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and to articles 5 par. 1, 14 par.1 and 16 par. 1 of the Greek Constitution, since Article 10 ECHR allows for restrictions and sanctions to be introduced, inter alia, for the prevention of crime and the protection of health. For the same reasons, the court dismissed the violation of other superior legal norms invoked by the petitioner (Articles 11 (1) and (16) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and 19 par. 2 of 16.12.1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ratified by the first article of Law 2462/1997) as legal grounds for annulment.
Because the contested act, having the above content, is lawfully reasoned given that the advertisement described above presents arson, i.e. a behaviour proscribed in the Criminal Code (see Article 264 of 283/1985, A 106) in an attractive manner. This is due to the fact that by linking the consumption of whisky to the abovementioned criminal offence the advertisement in question minimizes the disapprobation ascribed to this act with all the risks such minimization may entail for health and safety. Under these circumstances the imposed administrative sanction of ‘Recommendation’ is not contrary to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which was ratified by dec. 53/1974, A’ 256 and provides that “1. 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. 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”. This is due to the fact that Article 10 (2) of the ECHR allows for restrictions and sanctions to be introduced, inter alia, for the prevention of crime and the protection of health. For the same reasons, the recommendation in question was not imposed in breach of Articles 5 (1), 14 (1) and 16 (1) of the Constitution. This is irrespective of whether advertising falls within the protective scope of Article 14 of the Constitution, which concerns the expression of thoughts, or that of Article 16 (1) of the Constitution which refers to freedom of artistic expression (see CoS 1319/2004, 3426/2014). Furthermore, for the same reasons, there is no violation of the other superior legal norms invoked by the petitioner (Articles 11 (1) and 16 of the Charter for Fundamental Rights of the European Union [see consolidated version EEC 202 of 7 June 2016, p. 389] and 19 para. 2 of 16.12.1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the first article of Law 2462/1997, A 25).
Επειδή, με το ανωτέρω περιεχόμενο, η προσβαλλόμενη πράξη αιτιολογείται νομίμως, διότι η προπεριγραφείσα διαφήμιση παρουσιάζει με τρόπο ελκυστικό έναν εμπρησμό, δηλαδή συμπεριφορά που αποδοκιμάζεται και από τον Ποινικό Κώδικα (βλ. άρθρο 264 π.δ. 283/1985, Α΄ 106). Τούτο δε, διότι συνδέοντας την κατανάλωση του ουίσκι με το ανωτέρω ποινικό αδίκημα η εν λόγω διαφήμιση υποβαθμίζει την απαξία του με όλους τους κινδύνους που συνεπάγεται η υποβάθμιση αυτή για την ασφάλεια και την υγεία. Με τα δεδομένα αυτά, η επιβληθείσα διοικητική κύρωση της σύστασης δεν έρχεται σε αντίθεση προς το άρθρο 10 της Ευρωπαϊκής Σύμβασης για τα Δικαιώματα του Ανθρώπου, που κυρώθηκε με το ν.δ. 53/1974, Α΄ 256, και ορίζει ότι: «1. Παν πρόσωπον έχει δικαίωμα εις την ελευθερίαν εκφράσεως. Το δικαίωμα τούτο περιλαμβάνει την ελευθερίαν γνώμης, ως και την ελευθερίαν λήψεως ή μεταδόσεως πληροφοριών ή ιδεών άνευ επεμβάσεως δημοσίων αρχών και ασχέτως συνόρων. 2. Η άσκησις των ελευθεριών τούτων, συνεπαγομένων καθήκοντα και ευθύνας, δύναται να υπαχθεί εις ωρισμένας διατυπώσεις, όρους, περιορισμούς ή κυρώσεις προβλεπόμενας υπό του νόμου και αποτελούντα αναγκαία μέτρα εν δημοκρατική κοινωνία δια την εθνικήν ασφάλειαν, την προάσπισιν της τάξεως, την πρόληψιν των εγκλημάτων, την προστασίαν της υγείας ή της ηθικής, την προστασίαν της υπολήψεως ή των δικαιωμάτων των τρίτων, την απαγόρευσιν της κοινολογήσεως εμπιστευτικών πληροφοριών ή την διασφάλισιν του κύρους και της αμεροληψίας της δικαστικής εξουσίας». Και τούτο διότι η παράγραφος 2 του άρθρου 10 της ΕΣΔΑ επιτρέπει τη θέσπιση περιορισμών και κυρώσεων με σκοπό, μεταξύ άλλων, την πρόληψη των εγκλημάτων και την προστασία της υγείας. Για τους ίδιους δε λόγους, η ένδικη σύσταση δεν επιβλήθηκε κατά παράβαση των άρθρων 5 παρ. 1, 14 παρ. 1 και 16 παρ. 1 του Συντάγματος. Τούτο δε, ανεξαρτήτως του ζητήματος αν η διαφήμιση μπορεί να υπαχθεί στο προστατευτικό πεδίο του άρθρου 14 του Συντάγματος, που αφορά έκφραση στοχασμών ή σε αυτό του άρθρου 16 παρ. 1 του Συντάγματος που αναφέρεται στην ελευθερία της τέχνης (πρβλ. ΣτΕ 1319/2004, 3426/2014). Εξάλλου, για τους ίδιους λόγους δεν τίθεται εν προκειμένω ζήτημα παράβασης ούτε και των άλλων διατάξεων αυξημένης τυπικής ισχύος, τις οποίες επικαλείται ο αιτών (άρθρα 11 παρ. 1 και 16 του Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης [βλ. Ενοποιημένη απόδοση EEC 202 της 7ης Ιουνίου 2016 σελ. 389 επ.] και 19 παρ. 2 του από 16.12.1966 Διεθνούς Συμφώνου για τα ατομικά και πολιτικά δικαιώματα που κυρώθηκε με το άρθρο πρώτο του ν. 2462/1997, Α΄ 25).
