Greece / Athens Single-Member Court of Misdemeanours / Decision 65738/2014 / Case of Alexandros Plomaritis

Country

Greece

Title

Greece / Athens Single-Member Court of Misdemeanours / Decision 65738/2014 / Case of Alexandros Plomaritis

View full Case

Year

2014

Decision/ruling/judgment date

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Incident(s) concerned/related

Incitement to violence or hatred

Related Bias motivation

Race/Ethnicity

Groups affected

Migrants
Refugees & asylum seekers

Court/Body type

National Court

Court/Body

Athens Court of Misdemeanours

Key facts of the case

The Athens Single-Members Court of Misdemeanours convicted a known Golden Dawn Member and MP candidate under article 1 of the Anti-Racist Law 927/1979, which punishes the public incitement of violence or hate. He was convicted to one year imprisonment and a three-year suspended sentence for referring to migrants, inter alia, as “sub-human” and “taints” during an interview for a documentary that was aired on Channel 4 with the title "The Cleaners". The Court attempted to clarify the relationship between freedom of expression and hate speech and stated that the provisions of Law 927/1979 had to be interpreted narrowly and strictly so as not to endanger the freedom of expression, yet the State must also always keep in mind its obligation to respect and protect human dignity, including race and nationality.

Main reasoning/argumentation

The Court found that the phrases used by Mr Plomaritis, even if exaggerated, demonstrated his views, especially for publicly inviting others to carry out actions to cause bodily harm to various foreigners, so as to convince them to leave the Greek territory. The Court noted that discrimination, hate and violence had been expressed, through outlawed and extreme behaviours, namely beatings and murders of foreigners, at the time investigated by the Greek Justice system.

Is the case related to the application of the Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia, the Racial Equality Directive?

Key issues (concepts, interpretations) clarified by the case

The Court attempted to clarify the relationship between freedom of expression and hate-speech. It stated that the provisions of Law 927/1979 should be interpreted narrowly and strictly and that the foremost obligation of the state is the respect and protection of human value; the framework of which also includes the national and ethnic background of an individual, protected here through the adoption of Law 927/1979.

Results (sanctions, outcome) and key consequences or implications of the case

Through this Decision of the Athens Single-Member Court of Misdemeanours, Plomaritis was convicted to one year imprisonment and a three-year suspended sentence. This Decision was important, as it examined hate speech in light of the freedom of expression.It stipulated that Law 927/1979 has to be interpreted narrowly and strictly so as not to endanger the freedom of expression, yet the State must also always keep in mind its obligation to respect and protect human dignity, including race and nationality.

Key quotation in original language and its unofficial translation into English with reference details

“Οι δε φράσεις που χρησιμοποιήθηκαν από τον ίδιο κατά τη διάρκεια της συζήτησης στο καφενείο επί της οδού Πιπίνου, έστω και αν περιείχαν υπερβολή, καταδεικνύουν τις απόψεις του, κυρίως στην πρόσκληση δημόσια σε διάφορους άλλους να προβαίνουν στον ξυλοδαρμό, να απειλούν, να εξυβρίζουν, να τραυματίζουν με πρόκληση σοβαρών σωματικών βλαβών διάφορους αλλοδαπούς, προκειμένου οι υπόλοιποι να πείθονται κατά τον τρόπο αυτό να εγκαταλείπουν το έδαφος της Εληνικής Επικράτειας, ήταν δε ικανές οι φράσεις του και οι λέξεις του να προκαλέσουν διακρίσεις, αφού κατά τα λεγόμενά του κατηγορούμενου αυτοί φέρονται ως όντα κατώτερα, μίσος, διότι φέρονται ότι καταλαμβάνουν ζωτικό χώρο των Ελλήνων, και βία κυρίως κατά ομάδων και προσώπων με συγκεκριμένα φυλετικά χαρακτηριστικά που προσιδιάζουν σε διάφορες εθνοτικές ομάδες προερχόμενες από τις περιοχές της νότιας και νοτιοδυτικής Ασίας. Πρέπει δε να σημειωθεί ότι έστω και αν αυτό δεν απαιτείται για την πλήρωση της ειδικής υπόστασης της κρινόμενης πράξης του άρθρου 1 παρ. 1 του Ν 927/1979, οι διακρίσεις, το μίσος και η βία εκφράστηκαν ιδιαιτέρως, με έκνομες και ακραίες συμπεριφορές, συνιστάμενες σε ξυλοδαρμούς και ανθρωποκτονίες αλλοδαπών, που ερευνώνται ήδη από την Ελληνική Δικαιοσύνη.”

"The phrases used by him during the conversation at the coffee house on Pipinou street, even if exaggerated, demonstrate his views, especially for publicly inviting others to carry out beatings, threats, slandering, assaulting in order to cause bodily harm to various foreigners, so as to convince others to leave the Greek territory, on the other hand these phrases and words were capable of triggering discrimination, since according to the defendant they [foreigners] are considered lesser beings, hate because they are presented as conquerors of the vital area of Greeks, and violence specifically against groups and individuals with specific racial characteristics which appear linked to various national groups originated from the areas of south and south-east Asia. It should be noted that even if this is not required for the fulfilment of the specific essence of the crime under question of article 1 para. 1 of Law 927/1979, discrimination, hate and violence have been expressed, through outlawed and extreme behaviours, namely beatings and murders of foreigners, currently investigated by the Greek Justice [system]."
Athens Single-Member Court of Misdemeanours, Decision 65738/2014 (The full text of the decision is not available, however the crucial excerpts have been made available online at the website “Jail Golden Dawn” which chronicles all cases tried and pending against Golden Dawn and its members. The excerpts were found in Greek at: https://jailgoldendawn.com/2015/02/20/%CE%BC%CF%80%CE%BB%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE…, last accessed on 12/10/2017).

DISCLAIMERThe information presented here is collected under contract by the FRA's research network FRANET. The information and views contained do not necessarily reflect the views or the official position of the FRA.