An Athens first instance court on Thursday threw out a lawsuit by former prime ministerial chief of staff Grigoris Dimitriadis against a couple of mass media outlets and specific journalists who dug into the wire-tapping scandal in the country.
The reasoning behind the suit’s dismissal holds that references by journalists to the wire-tapping case, and questions over Dimitriadis’ relations with companies involved in the trafficking of the malicious spyware Predator in Greece are legitimate, given that they were not aimed at impugning his reputation but due to reasons of legitimate and justified journalistic interest – according to the ruling.
In continuing, the court decision said the press reports in question did not exceed the boundaries of legitimate criticism – criticism that should be exercised vis-a-vis office holders and those in political authority. Several citations were included of decisions issued by European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg towards this direction.
The ruling details the press reports cited by the plaintiff attorney’s in the lawsuit, namely, by the Athens daily newspaper ‘Efimerida ton Syntakton’ and the website Reporters United, along with witnesses’ court testimony. One of the most prominent defense witnesses was constitutional law professor Nikos Alivizatos, who underlined the role of the press and the duty of journalists to plough ahead with disclosures, especially when regarding serious issues affecting institutions.
Judicial ruling in Dimitriadis’ Case
In further qualifying their reasoning, the first instance justices said both the newspaper, which published the under-scrutiny article with the headline “Big Nephew, Big Brother”, as well as the website and respective journalists of both media outlets, tabled questions and presented information regarding Grigoris Dimitriadis and in relation to the illegal surveillance of mobile phones using the Predator spyware – and all within the framework of justified journalistic interest.
Another defendant that was named in the Dimitriadis lawsuit is journalist Thanasis Koukakis, who reposted the articles on a social media platform. Koukakis himself had been targeted by the malicious spyware, but also by the Greek intelligence service’s (EYP) phone tap warrants. He was among the first to publicize the issue and bring it before justice.
“…In view of the journalistic nature of the publication, the public office held by the plaintiff, which is a purely political position, and indeed a non-elected one, and the importance of the phone-tapping case in the public domain, it is considered that there’s a justified interest on behalf of journalists, therefore, any injustice due to defamation incurred by the plaintiff is waived”.
In terms of the second issue cited, namely, the relationship between Dimitriadis and the companies involved with the Predator spyware, the article in question provides a detailed description of real business transactions, with the content derived on the basis of journalistic investigation into the operation of the Predator software in Greece.
Witness testimonies
According to reports, a witness for the plaintiff did not provide evidence to support the latter’s claim, while the second witness for the defendants, journalist Anastasios Telloglou, fleshed out the course of the journalists’ investigation into the explosive case.
Prof. Alivizatos testified that, in his experience as a constitutional lawyer, the article’s authors did not exceed the limits of journalistic ethics, nor did they present indications as facts. They also did not insultingly refer to the plaintiff. His only reservations touched on the headlines of the front page and inside pages: “The Big Nephew and Big Brother”, as well as “Eavesdropping and Big…Nephew”.
The “nephew” refers to the fact that Dimitriadis is a nephew of Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, the son of his elder sister.
Additionally, the judges acknowleged that there was no falsehood in a detailed account of the transactions and activity of the companies identified in the article.
Finally, a majority opinion held that there doesn’t appear to have been any bad faith on the part of article’s authors towards the plaintiff prior to the latter’s publication, adding that the journalists used mild language, asked questions germane to the investigation, as required by journalistic ethics, and provided Dimitriadis with sufficient time to respond.
