Judgment on infringement of personality rights through a post on a social media platform. The court: (a) awards reasonable amounts of pecuniary compensation for moral damages arising from tort; (b) orders the defendant to delete from his personal Facebook profile the posts offensive to the plaintiffs and to publish, visibly to the public on the personal profile he uses, a summary of the court ruling, with the defendant being sentenced to a monetary penalty of EUR 1,000 for each day of breach of this obligation in favour of each of the plaintiffs; (c) orders the defendant to refrain in future from any post on Facebook from his personal profile through which he refers, directly or indirectly, with offensive expressions to the person of each of the plaintiffs, under threat of a monetary penalty of EUR 1,000 and personal detention of one month for each repetition of the infringement in favour of each of the plaintiffs.
Judgment No. PPrAth 908/2024
ATHENS COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
SPECIAL PROCEDURE
OBLIGATIONS DIVISION
THE ATHENS MULTI-MEMBER COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
. . .
In the present case, by the lawsuit under consideration, the plaintiffs allege that the defendant, husband of the daughter of the first plaintiff, brother-in-law of the second and nephew of the third, by successive posts on the personal account he maintains on the social media platform “Facebook”, from 04.05.2020 until 26.07.2022, published the texts referred to in the lawsuit, in which he referred to the persons of the plaintiffs with slanderous, insulting, threatening and offensive allegations against their personality, while in addition he posted, without their consent, photographs of them accompanied by his offensive comments, of which posts a large number of persons became aware, who had access to the at times public and at times private profile of the defendant. On the basis of the above, following an admissible limitation of the enforcement claim of the lawsuit by their brief and by a declaration of their authorised lawyer entered in the minutes, the plaintiffs request: (a) That the defendant be ordered to remove the infringement of their personality, namely to delete the posts referred to in the lawsuit from the personal account he maintains on “Facebook” and be ordered to publish therein a summary of the judgment to be issued, under threat of a monetary penalty of EUR 1,000 for each day of delay in publication, in favour of each of the plaintiffs; (b) That the defendant be ordered to refrain in future from repeating the infringement of their personality, under threat of a monetary penalty of EUR 1,000 and personal detention of one (1) month for each breach of that order; (c) That the defendant be ordered to pay to the first plaintiff the sum of EUR 45,000.00 and to each of the second and third plaintiffs the sum of EUR 40,000.00, as pecuniary compensation for the redress of the moral damages they suffered as a result of his tortious conduct, with legal interest from the service of the lawsuit until full payment, and that court costs be imposed on the defendant.
. . .
From the assessment of the unsworn deposition of the first plaintiff and all the documents lawfully produced and invoked by the parties, the following facts are proven: The defendant is a lawyer and husband of …, daughter of the first plaintiff, brother-in-law of the second and nephew of the third plaintiff. From 2010 onwards, in connection with the use of the family residence of the first two plaintiffs and their non-litigant sister, and the operation of their pharmacy in A… in the Prefecture of Pella, a fierce dispute arose between the first two plaintiffs and … and her husband, the defendant. The second plaintiff suffers from a genetic, gene-based dysfunction, with the result that she presents incomplete development and short stature. The third plaintiff is a cousin of the now-deceased father of the second plaintiff and of the non-litigant …, and gave testimony, in certain judicial disputes between the parties, in favour of the first two plaintiffs. In the context of this multi-year dispute, the defendant, from the personal account he maintains on the social media platform Facebook under the name “…” (which he changed to “…”, then to “…” and most recently to “…”), made the following posts, referring to the persons of the plaintiffs: 1. On 4-5-2020, at around 14:32, he wrote and posted, addressing implicitly but clearly the first two plaintiffs, the following: “God gave us friends to ask forgiveness for the relatives he saddled us with”. 2. On 11-5-2020 at around 14:51, just three (3) days before the hearing, before the Edessa Single-Member Court of First Instance, of the two opposing applications for the exclusion of a partner brought by his wife … against the second plaintiff and vice versa, he wrote and posted, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “Two things I detest: the mother-in-law and the tax office, in that order…”. 3. On 21-5-2020 at around 10:12, nine (9) days after the service of the plaintiffs’ extra-judicial notice (KPolD) of 8.5.2020 concerning his initial posts against them, he posted, referring to the first two plaintiffs, the following: “There is nothing I detest more than the ungrateful beneficiary, especially if he is a friend or relative”. 4. On 24-5-2020 at around 12:11, three (3) days after the lawsuit of the plaintiffs of 18-5-2020 was served on him, claiming damages for infringement of their personality as a consequence of his posts against them for the period from 1-3-2019 to 22-3-2020, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the first plaintiff, the following: “The junk dealer just passed by with his lorry, shouting ‘I buy all old things, old washing machines, old fridges…’. I stopped him and told him ‘I’ll give you my mother-in-law for free!’ and he says to me ‘I won’t take her no matter how much you pay me’. Even gold wouldn’t have made him take her, he doesn’t take an old person, a wretched old soul…”. 5. On 29-5-2020 at around 11:01, he posted and wrote, referring implicitly but clearly to the first plaintiff, the following: “A mother who has plundered her child and then slanders her to muddy the waters belongs in the rubbish bin…”. 6. Subsequently, on 13-6-2020 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring implicitly but clearly to the first two plaintiffs, the following: “Life is an uphill road on which you cannot carry boulders on your back; the most unbearable are the deceitful relatives”. 7. On the same day at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the first plaintiff, the following: “If a wicked old hag suffers from heart disease it’s not from remorse but because they caught her…”. 8. On 18-6-2020 at an unspecified time, he posted, above two photographs of the third plaintiff, one depicting him alone and the other with a friend, the following: “My wife’s uncle who calls me ‘our son-in-law’, the pride and the celebrity of her family, the best friend of my beloved mother-in-law, the Nuclear Physicist of the University of Oslo, of course, of course!”. 9. On 24-6-2020 at around 20:54, two (2) days before the hearing before the Thessaloniki Single-Member Court of Appeals of his wife’s request for the suspension of execution of the precautionary attachment being pursued under judgment No. 315/2018 of the Edessa Single-Member Court of First Instance, he posted and wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “There is no greater felony than when a ‘mother’, a wicked old hag, poisons one of her children against the other in order to achieve personal gain”. 10. On 27-6-2020 at 00:12, that is the very night of the day on which the aforementioned request of his wife was heard before the Thessaloniki Single-Member Court of Appeals for a temporary restraining order suspending execution of the precautionary attachment being pursued by the second plaintiff, under judgment No. 315/2018 of the Edessa Single-Member Court of First Instance, against her, as manager of the pharmacy company, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the second plaintiff, the following: “Apart from ‘fashion for plump women’ there should also come out a ‘fashion for short women’, they are far more numerous!”. 11. On 27-6-2020 at an unspecified time, he wrote and posted, addressing clearly the third plaintiff, using a diminutive of his name, within a frame featuring LGBT+ community flags, the following: “… how handsome you were yesterday, wear the same clothes when you go to the Investigating Judge in Edessa when you receive your summons”. He then made a sub-post in which he wrote: “You wear your fakes, you mount your battered moped and you go out to conquer the night in your old age, they spit on you and you say it’s drizzling, they beat you and you say they hired bouncers”. 12. On 4-7-2020 at an unspecified time, two (2) days after the adjournment of the hearing, at his wife’s request, on 2-7-2020 at the Edessa Single-Member Court of First Instance, of the opposing applications for exclusion of a partner, hers against the second plaintiff and vice versa, he posted a report from the online site “….gr” entitled “She gave him a house and put him in an old people’s home”, under which he wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “And as can be understood, all the ungrateful ones are women! Imagine then situations and episodes with an ungrateful wicked old hag whose sole purpose and god is only money — God protect you…”. 13. The very next day, namely on 5-7-2020 at around 08:30, he posted and wrote, referring implicitly but clearly to the first two plaintiffs, the following: “The most important choices in our lives we make alone — the partner we choose, the friends, the profession we select, the place we will live, even cigarettes and drink. As for relatives, we have no margin of choice, it doesn’t depend on us, there it’s just luck. With your wife, if you don’t get along, you divorce; from your mother and your sister you can’t divorce, you can only pay lawyers…”. 14. On 15-7-2020 at around 15:56, two (2) days before the deadline (17-7-2020) for filing of brief on the lawsuit for compensation for use filed by his wife of 17-12-2019 against the first two plaintiffs before the Edessa Single-Member Court of First Instance within the 100-day period from its filing with the relevant extensions he obtained, he posted and wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “You wretched old hag, you’re rotten to the bone, you crawl like a dog for money”. 15. On 21-7-2020 at an unspecified time, above two photographs of the third plaintiff, which he posted without his consent, addressing him clearly and unambiguously, he wrote the following: “You can take the man out of the village but not the village out of the man…”. It should be noted that in the said post, the defendant added another photograph of the third plaintiff, above which he wrote the following: “Nightmare on the Road of the Poplars”, and in a subsequent comment of his, replying to his online friend with the username “…”, who commented “the carnival came early this year…”, he wrote the following: “this one celebrates it 365 days a year, just like April Fool’s”. 16. On 22-7-2020 at around 12:02, two (2) days before the hearing on 24-7-2020 before the Thessaloniki Single-Member Court of Appeals of the new request, by a new application for interim measures, of his wife for a temporary restraining order suspending execution of the precautionary attachment being pursued under judgment No. 315/2018 of the Edessa Single-Member Court of First Instance against the pharmacy company, he posted a report from the online site “….gr” referring to the rant of the rapper …, who wanted to divorce his wife …, and wrote underneath, referring clearly to the first plaintiff, the following comment: “My own mother-in-law is even more of a scoundrel than the Armenian woman, but I’m honey-and-milk with my wife! In any case, if you get tangled up with a family of predators, you can be sure of the cardiologist or the psychiatrist (or both together); my closest relative experienced this…”. 17. On 24-7-2020 at an unspecified time, again above a photograph of the third plaintiff which he posted without his consent, he wrote the following: “I think it’s the most appropriate outfit for someone to appear before an Investigating Judge to claim diminished responsibility — 3 months involuntary committal in a Public Psychiatric Hospital and you’re done!”, and additionally in a first comment of his online friend named …, “Does this … thing really exist???”, he replied “it lives among us”, and to another comment from the same friend “where is this exhibit so I can go and admire it up close??” he replied “in P…”, with his friend replying: “I’m already on my way, I won’t miss it for anything”. Also, the defendant, replying to another comment of his online friend named …, wrote: “there was an Italian comedian, Cicco, in the 1970s who dressed like that, he probably copies him, he even resembles him”. 18.
Subsequently, on 26-7-2020 at around 12:22, two (2) days after the hearing on 24-7-2020 before the Thessaloniki Single-Member Court of Appeals of the new request, by a new application for interim measures, of his wife for a temporary restraining order suspending execution of the precautionary attachment being pursued under judgment No. 315/2018 of the Edessa Single-Member Court of First Instance against the pharmacy company, he posted and wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “You roll in mud and lies like a pig, you wretched old hag, you slander your child, that’s how worthless you are, you won’t even get a rotten apple in the end”. 19. On 27-8-2020, at an unspecified time, above a photograph of himself depicting him holding a weapon, he posted, referring to the third plaintiff, the following: “…PS: …, you don’t even deserve a little pistol because you’re a bald crow”. 20. On 3-9-2020 at an unspecified time, on the day of the hearing before the Edessa Single-Member Court of First Instance of, on the one hand, the two opposing applications for exclusion of a partner, of his wife against the second plaintiff and vice versa, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the second plaintiff, the following comment: “You short one, tell us whose daughter you really are, because the patronymic you state doesn’t match your wretched state and your hysteria”. 21. On 4-9-2020 at an unspecified time, one (1) day after the hearing of the aforementioned applications at the Edessa Single-Member Court of First Instance, he posted and wrote, referring implicitly but clearly to the first two plaintiffs, the following: “This is exactly what is happening in my wife’s ‘family’ for seven (7) years now. Vile and hypocritical people slander, accuse, give false testimony with the sole purpose of grabbing other people’s money and possessions, of persecuting the naked Truth”. 22. Subsequently, on 6-9-2020 at an unspecified time, three (3) days after the hearing of the aforementioned applications at the Edessa Single-Member Court of First Instance, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the second plaintiff, the following comment: “– Stand up my child so the Lady Judge can see you. – I am standing, uncle…”. 23. On 7-9-2020 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “You whore, instead of running for your mother to the hospitals, you ran your daughter to the courts”. 24. On 25-9-2020 at an unspecified time, three (3) days after the swearing-in on 22-9-2020, before the Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance, of the expert witness appointed by judgment No. 1973/2020 of the said court in the case of the partition lawsuit of the first two plaintiffs against his wife …, he posted and wrote, referring implicitly but clearly to the first plaintiff, the following: “We know each other, but you think you know me… I never harmed you… You did me many despicable and treacherous deeds… Stop the fairy tales about threats, heart conditions and disability, they won’t get you anywhere… Apologise to your child and bring back what you stole before I met you… We’ll make a fresh start! This is what your interest dictates…”. 25. On 8-10-2020 at an unspecified time, three (3) days after the lapse of the deadline for filing of brief (5.10.2020) on his wife’s accounting lawsuit, with case file no. ./5-2-2020, against the first plaintiff, before the Edessa Multi-Member Court of First Instance, within 100 days of the filing of the lawsuit with the extensions he obtained, he posted and wrote, referring implicitly but clearly to the person of the first plaintiff, the following: “You don’t threaten the whore with a weapon, but with not getting paid, especially the whore in the soul…”. 26. On 8-10-2020 he posted, referring to the third plaintiff, using a diminutive of his name, the following: “…, do you remember, you holed-up one, when you came out on the balcony with the bloody bathrobe and shouted ‘help’?”. 27. On 10-10-2020 at an unspecified time, one (1) day after the lapse of the deadline for filing of brief (9.10.2020) on the tort lawsuits of his wife with case file nos. ./11-2-2020 and ./11-2-2020 against all three plaintiffs before the Edessa Single-Member Court of First Instance, within 100 days of the filing of the lawsuits with the extensions the deadline obtained, he posted and wrote, referring to the first and third plaintiffs, the following: “THE TEARS OF THE WHORE.. AND THE OATHS OF THE FAGGOT… DON’T BELIEVE THEM!!!”, writing the following comment himself: “Nothing expresses me more in this particular juncture of my life — the whore has money as her god and the faggot who wears a skirt swears false oaths…”. 28. On the same day, namely on 10-10-2020 at an unspecified time, he wrote and posted, referring to the third plaintiff, the following: “Little clown, don’t boast that you were elected 4th, … was elected 1st, she beat you!”. 29. Again on the same day, 10-10-2020, at an unspecified time, above a photograph of the third plaintiff which the defendant posted without his consent, he wrote the following: “Where are you going, you Pontian, with that skirt and the curly hair on your bandy legs? At least do a halawa. You’ll take after me, because I can’t put a 0…”. Beneath this post of his, the following comments were also made about the third plaintiff, between the defendant and various of his online friends. To his comment “Pleated skirt and a carnation in the ear”, his online friend with the profile name “…” replied as follows: “You mean when this hag comes as a perjurer to the courts they consider him normal and examine him? Don’t they tell him to bring a paper from a psychiatrist?” and the defendant replied to him: “she is a defendant for fraud upon the court and perjury”. 30. On 17-10-2020 at an unspecified time, three (3) days before the deadline for filing of additional brief refutation on 20-10-2020 before the Edessa Multi-Member Court of First Instance on his wife’s accounting lawsuit against the first plaintiff, he posted and wrote the following: “THE JEALOUSY OF A FRIEND IS WORSE THAN THE HATRED OF AN ENEMY…”, writing himself above this phrase the following comment: “That of a relative even worse…”, referring clearly, as can be inferred from the multitude of his posts, to the first two plaintiffs. 31. On 27-10-2020 at an unspecified time, he wrote and posted, referring implicitly but clearly to the third plaintiff, the following within a frame featuring the transgender (trans persons) flag: “When you come to the Investigating Judge wear a skirt and bring the 8-page CV…”. He made a similar post the following day, on 28-10-2020, where again within a frame featuring the transgender (trans persons) flag he writes the following: “Spotted boy, when you come to the Investigating Judge wear a skirt and bring the 8-page CV…”. 32. On 31-10-2020 at an unspecified time, five (5) days before the hearing on 5-11-2020 before the Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance of the plaintiffs’ lawsuit of 13-5-2020 against him for earlier posts of his against them, namely those of the period from 1-3-2019 to 22-3-2020, he posted and wrote, referring implicitly but clearly to the plaintiffs, his wife’s relatives, the following: “The worst feeling is the jealousy of a relative; it poisons him day by day…”. 33. On 2-11-2020 at around 14:44, namely just 3 days before the hearing of the aforementioned lawsuit of the plaintiffs against him for the earlier posts he had made against them, he posted and wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following comment: “‘Love is an idea, Marriage is reality’ (Goethe). That is why the State gives you six (6) chances to find the reality that suits you. Based on my very unpleasant experience, I advise you to marry women who are orphaned of their mother…”. 34. On 6-11-2020 at an unspecified time, one (1) day after the hearing of the aforementioned lawsuit of the plaintiffs, he posted and wrote, referring implicitly but clearly to the first plaintiff, the following: “When you are a liar, a fraud, a wretch, ruthless, you look to find an unethical lawyer, worse than yourself, who will have no problem assisting you in your illegal schemes. But in life you get what you deserve, and the greatest punishment is for your own child to detest you…”. 35. On 9-11-2020 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, having even added a photograph depicting himself, the following, addressing clearly the first two plaintiffs: “Two unhappy manic-depressive little women publicly accuse me of having threatened and intimidated them with a weapon to achieve my financial interests. This of course is unthinkable and outrageous, because it is contrary to my nature — the wolf never intimidates the lambs, he reserves a different treatment for them…”. Indeed, an online friend of the defendant with the profile name “…”, starting a conversation with him, says the following: “How many more years do you think she’ll live?” referring to the first plaintiff, with the defendant replying as follows: “may she go to hell”. 36. On 12-11-2020 at an unspecified time, he reposted a post by a Facebook user with the profile name “…” which read as follows: “Colleagues, my ex-mother-in-law has been intubated with COVID. She wore a mask everywhere but was always out: supermarket… pharmacies… Germanos… payments etc. At home she was isolated. They are right… mingling does the damage… Be careful”, commenting the following about the first plaintiff: “I wholeheartedly wish for my current one too, immediately!”. 37. On 19-11-2020 at an unspecified time, one day before the hearing on 20-11-2020 before the Thessaloniki Single-Member Court of Appeals of his wife’s appeal and additional grounds of appeal against the second plaintiff and against judgment No. 315/2018 of the Edessa Single-Member Court of First Instance, he posted and wrote, referring to the first two of the plaintiffs, the following: “You wicked old hag, are you looking for € from the couch? Leave the wretched one alone to calm down, you’ve driven her crazy…”. 38. On 2-12-2020 at an unspecified time, seven (7) days before the lapse of the deadline for filing of brief (9.12.2020) on the lawsuit of 28.7.2020 of the second plaintiff against his wife, individually and as manager of the pharmacy company, for the conducting of a management audit of the company, before the Edessa Multi-Member Court of First Instance, he posted and wrote, referring implicitly but clearly to the first plaintiff, the following: “When you are rotten to the marrow, you can’t change in your old age, fate simply returns to you what you have done…”. 39. On 8-12-2020 at an unspecified time, one (1) day before the lapse of the deadline for filing of brief (9.12.2020) on the aforementioned lawsuit of 28.7.2020 of the second plaintiff against his wife, he posted a report from the online site “….gr” regarding the testimony of a witness in the case of the fatal traffic accident of the singer …, and wrote, referring clearly to the first plaintiff, the following: “After 5 years a witness was found to testify on the matter for the first time — perhaps a policeman…? These crooks remind me of the wicked old hag, all for money without any shame…”. 40. On 16-12-2020 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the second plaintiff, the following: “And you, you wretched disabled person, since you say everywhere that he wasn’t your father, by what right do you claim his estate?”. 41. On the same day (16-12-2020) at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the first plaintiff, the following: “You filthy wicked old hag, you cursed me and so I’ll end up holding the celebrations at home in A…. For so many years we went for New Year’s Eve to St. Moritz and I said this year let’s go to Courchevel for a change — I had prepaid the whole package since July, but from the moment you got my name in your mouth everything went to hell. Because of you, along with us, several hundred more VIPs will be deprived of their Christmas holidays. Damn you, you jinx. Everyone knows about the curse of the old woman — imagine that of the wicked old hag…”. 42. On 19-12-2020 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the second plaintiff, the following: “You wretched one, will you accept to take a DNA test to resolve all our matters, do you dare?”. This post of his is accompanied by an exchange of comments between him and another user of the social media platform Facebook, whose name coincides with that of his wife’s authorised lawyer, and his own in two cases, … He himself initially comments the following: “When you shout like a madwoman outside the Courts in front of many people ‘he’s not my father, didn’t my mother tell you?’, I believe you have the minimum intelligence to understand that you have no legal or moral right to exploit, possess and claim his estate. So do you accept on your own to take a DNA test, or will we have to take that to court too?”, to which the Facebook user with the name “…” replies the following: “The presumption of legitimate descent is rebuttable… and once rebutted…” and continues commenting: “Many things considered established are then overturned… The correlations change…”, with the defendant replying to him as follows: “nothing is taken for granted any longer in this very dirty case, I’ll take them to the very end”.
On the same day, 19-12-2020, at an unspecified time, he wrote and posted, referring to the third plaintiff, the following: “A bald Pontian elf lives among us — if you encounter it don’t be frightened, it’s good-natured, it talks constantly about itself, to which it refers with the! word EGO”. It should be noted that, above a post of the third plaintiff which the defendant reposted without his consent, he comments the following: “Elf with a Superego”, while he also makes another comment as follows: “The curse of the bald man is the jockey cap winter and summer”.
On 20-12-2020 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the second plaintiff, the following: “And you, you filthy bastard, since you say everywhere that he wasn’t your father, by what right do you claim his estate?”. 45. On 24-12-2020 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the first two of the plaintiffs, the following: “You wicked old hag, you are rotten to the marrow and as wretched as your own face, so was the bastard you bore. I ask you again, do you dare to take a DNA test?”. In response to comments from his online friends, the defendant replied the following: “during the festive days, apart from your loved ones, you also think of the discarded ones…”, while another online friend of his with the profile name “…” also commented: “You’ve made her a complete laughingstock, …!!!”, to which the defendant subsequently replied as follows: “she doesn’t need me, bro, she’s a complete laughingstock anyway, and her bastard offspring has done worse”. 46. On 27-12-2020 at an unspecified time he posted and wrote, referring to the plaintiffs, the following: “The most sworn enemy is the failed relative whose envy eats away at his guts”. 47. On 29-12-2020 at an unspecified time he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the first plaintiff, the following: “Wicked old hag, isn’t there a hair-dyer who has been your kept man since 2000? Doesn’t he speak with a lisp? Didn’t he send you faxes at the pharmacy with poems? Am I a liar? When you talk on your mobile, do you remember to press the red button to end the call? When you talk to your child on the mobile, do you always have the hair-dyer next to you as a prompter? Weren’t you invited to my son’s birthday in April 2013 — did I bring you under threat of weapons, did I kidnap you? Didn’t we come to visit your house in Athens in May 2017 — did I threaten you with a Kalashnikov to make you open the three (3) doors for us? Am I making all the above up in my head? Do you want to hear a conversation on your mobile where, after you finish in excellent spirits in May 2015 the discussion with your child about some property matters, the hair-dyer butts in and tells you in a vile manner ‘you idiot you didn’t say it the way I had told you, the fool understood you were trying to deceive her, you idiot’. Am I lying, wicked old hag?”. This post of the defendant was accompanied by comments from his online friends, among them the comment of his online friend with the username “…”: “Bad dog… won’t drop dead, unfortunately, lads!!!”, while another online friend of his with the username “…” made two comments, the first as follows: “I laugh when I read the extra-judicial notice (KPolD), …!!!” and the second: “Is the old crone still alive, …, around 80?”, under which the defendant replies as follows: “the wicked old hags take a long time to drop dead because God doesn’t want them at his feet…”. Subsequently the online friend with the username “…” wrote the following: “These ones the devil takes as helpers”, to which the defendant replied: “My friend, damn the devil and his minions!”. 48. On 30-12-2020 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the first plaintiff, the following: “The liar and the thief rejoice in the 1st year, then the criminal and civil drag-outs begin, eh wicked old hag?”. 49. On the same day, 30-12-2020 at an unspecified time, he wrote and posted, above a photograph of the third plaintiff without his consent, the following: “The unpleasant consequences of click-away — when you shop without being able to try on the clothes…”. On this post, 5 comments were also made between the defendant and his online friends, and namely a friend of his with the profile name “…” commented: “Where are you going, you Pontian with rotten teeth, at least don’t smile”, to which he again replies mockingly as follows: “he’s waiting for them to fall out so he can put in dentures”, a friend of his with the profile name “…” commented: “I don’t know the man. He’s ready for the runway, in any case”, with the defendant replying ironically: “I don’t know him either, I just felt sorry for his blunder”. 50. The next day and the last of 2020, namely on 31-12-2020 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the first two of us, as follows: “Get the hell out, you and the wicked old hag, I’m sick of you, away from me”, a post under which he uploaded a photograph with the inscription of the year 2020. 51. On the same day, namely on 31-12-2020 at an unspecified time, referring to the second plaintiff, he posted and wrote the following: “When you are complex-ridden and a failure, you constantly blame someone else for your sorry state, everyone wrongs you…”. 52. On 13-1-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted a publication from the site “….gr” relating to the closure of one of the most historic car dealerships and wrote, on the occasion of this publication, referring clearly to the second plaintiff, the following: “A historic company with zero borrowing closed, not from the crisis and economic problems but from court battles between close relatives. What can one write first… I have been living this serial in my own skin for 8 years now with a useless individual who has never offered anything to the company and engages in an illegal and absurd court war that stems from complex, incompetence and above all envy towards her successful and socially recognised relative, while this is a failed nullity. But everything here is paid for, and in the end everyone gets exactly what they deserve. When you have failed catastrophically in your personal and professional life. When everywhere you see enemies while for your sorry state you and your choices are to blame. When you can’t be bothered to get up from the bed and the couch. When jealousy and envy of the people closest to you have taken hold of you. The best solution to calm your soul is to lock yourself in a monastery, where you’ll also have many strays to take care of…. As my much successful Vlach textile merchant great-grandfather used to say, ‘a relative — eat, drink, but don’t do business with him'”. 53. Subsequently, on the same day, 13-1-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the plaintiffs, the following: “THE TEARS OF THE WHORE.. AND THE OATHS OF THE FAGGOT… DON’T BELIEVE THEM!!!”, commenting above this post the following: “Especially in court”.!”. 54. On 18-1-2021 at an unspecified time, four (4) days before the hearing before the Thessaloniki Single-Member Court of Appeals of the application for interim measures of the second plaintiff against his wife regarding the suspension of execution of judgment No. 269/2020 of the Edessa Single-Member Court of First Instance, he posted a publication from the site “….gr” referring to the case of the well-known singer …, referring to the witness …, and wrote the following referring to the first plaintiff: “Whoever tells lies and uses false witnesses will be humiliated in the end and suffer the legal consequences. Is the wicked old hag reading?”. 55. On 21-1-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, addressing the first plaintiff, the following: “Wicked old hag, good evening — someone came who returned from Wuppertal and was looking for you to rent your shop. He’ll give 1,500 €/month rent (just what you asked from your child, and don’t dispute it, I have a doctor as a witness). He says he wants to make it a fag-bar and he’s in a hurry to get it ready. I gave him your mobile so you can talk. But I’m afraid he’ll have difficulty getting a licence because it’s opposite the church. But I told him you have a sharp lawyer who’ll start the phone calls, the threats and the reports to all the competent authorities, and he’ll clean up the mess!”. 56. On 23-1-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, addressing the first plaintiff, the following: “When your own husband called you ‘a whore in the soul’ and all your relatives call you ‘…’. When you don’t speak with your daughter, your sister, your parents, your uncles, your husband’s sisters, your cousins. When you’ve made your best friend the one whom for decades you called ‘a clown’, with the sole purpose of exploiting him and using him as a perjurer. When the only god you believe in is money. Look at your wretched state, look how low you’ve fallen, and at least in your old age do some self-criticism and don’t concern yourself with me and my wonderful family. Tell us who is your favourite child….;”. Indeed, in the said publication, comments took place between the defendant and his online friends, such as the comment of the user with the name “…”, as follows: “Whose bastard is it in the end, …?”, with the defendant replying: “What can we say, my friend…”, to which the said online friend of the defendant replied: “Hasn’t the shitty old hag died yet of old age, …?”, with the defendant replying as follows: “these ones take a long time to drop dead because God hates seeing them in his dealings”. His other online friend, with the username “…”, comments the following: “Fortunately the bastard doesn’t bark, otherwise it would have been a mad party! Even she doesn’t know whose he is”, to which the defendant comments on this comment the following: “and she can’t see either”. 57. On 22-1-2021 at an unspecified time, he wrote the following comment, above a photograph of the third plaintiff which he posted without his consent: “Did the Triodion open and I didn’t notice? Damn, here she is, … of Kalamaria!”. On this post of his, comments took place between the defendant and his online friends. A friend of his with the username “…” comments the following: “…, did this one too arrive together with the other best friend from Wuppertal?? I’m asking … politely, calmly….” and the defendant replies: “no, basically he’s a very reliable witness in the courts”. His other online friend with the profile name “…” comments “He must not have done military service…I6”, and the defendant replies as follows: “you’ve piqued my curiosity, I’ll ask and find out about it”. Another online friend with the username “…” posts a photograph of a male model, and the defendant comments: “my own … is more beautiful because she’s always smiling!!!”. 58. On 8-2-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted a publication from the site “….gr” about a statement made by the sister of the Duchess of Sussex …: “She brainwashed …” and wrote, referring to the second plaintiff, the following: “What can enemies do to you when you have such a sister, eh …? In the end there is no greater jealousy and envy than that between sisters; we feel it in our skin, the lies and slander surpass every limit of reason, eh …?”. Continuing under the said post, he comments as follows: “When they write about disabilities, disability and poverty, screw it, they’ve hit rock bottom in matters of dignity, the poison of envy that runs in their veins haunts them, screw them, we live it daily”, referring to the first two of the plaintiffs. On this post of his, comments also took place between the defendant and his online friends. Specifically, an online friend of his with the profile name “.” comments as follows: “Crush them mercilessly Master, early on… afterwards they grow and rebel”, to which his other online friend with the profile name “…” replies the following: “our friend has already flattened them!!!”. Subsequently, “…” replies as follows: “I was sure, my friend …, I was sure! Of course, you must always be on guard with these people”, to which “…” replies: “If you knew how much I pity your wife for everything she goes through; the rags have no shame”. 59. On 14-2-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted a photograph of the first two plaintiffs, without their consent, making it absolutely clear that the content of his post refers exclusively to them, writing also the following on this post: “Everyone contacted us to congratulate us on our daughter — friends, relatives, godparents, acquaintances, neighbours, colleagues, suppliers, sales reps — everyone EXCEPT her grandmother and her aunt, who in any case have never seen her. But how sweet they both are, dripping honey…. I’m so saddened, sob…”. 60. On 3-3-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring implicitly but clearly to the first plaintiff, having even put a photograph of the anti-anxiety medication … under his post, the following: “When you’ve wronged, slandered, persecuted your own child, no matter how many … you swallow, the remorse won’t let you close your eyes; you’ll sit like a ghost in the dark under the extractor hood, lighting one cigarette after another…”. 61. On 7-3-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring implicitly but clearly to the first plaintiff, the following: “Any moment now the wicked old hag will file a criminal complaint (mínysi) against us for rape in 2009…?”. 62. On the same day, namely on 7-3-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “God estranges you from relatives because he hears what they think about you”. 63. On 14-3-2021 at an unspecified time, four (4) days after the service on him of judgment No. 532/2021 of the Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance, he posted and wrote, referring implicitly but clearly to the second plaintiff, the following: “Justice is like Life — slow, tiring, with adjournments, but in the end every bastard gets what he deserves”. 64. On 5-5-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “The consequences of your actions have grabbed by the throat both you and the one you supposedly care about and protect — the … and the cigarette under the extractor hood are your punishment…”. 65. Subsequently, on 15-5-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “Wicked old hag, you have one foot in the grave; everything you stole, everything you grabbed will all stay here. Did this ever pass through your vile mind…?”. 66. On 16-5-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the first and third of the plaintiffs, the following: “THE TEARS OF THE WHORE.. AND THE OATHS OF THE FAGGOT… DON’T BELIEVE THEM!!!”, commenting above this post the following: “Greece is full of such people, especially in the courtrooms… I also know a wicked old hag who has plundered her children and comes to the courts dressed in old rags and unwashed for days to elicit pity, scram, you filthy thing”. It should be noted that on this post, a comment by the defendant’s online friend, with the username “…”, followed, as follows: “She thinks she’ll take it to the grave, the bitch”, and the defendant replies as follows: “may she have a foul death, old friend”. 67. On 25-5-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the second plaintiff, the following: “I started writing an experiential book entitled ‘The 1,000 lies of the bastard …'”.
Indeed, the defendant made two more comments under this post of his, as follows: “The … that they used to drag back and forth to display and parade her misery…” and “Do you dare a DNA test, you fly-shit, so we can find out who your mother had you with?”. 68. On 26-5-2021 at an unspecified time, he wrote and posted, above a photograph of the third plaintiff depicting him with the Prime Minister of the country, which he posted without his consent, the following: “…, you got cocky from the scruff. People like that one — better that they accuse you than lick you. In spelling, the barefoot brain excels — Top Student of the Experimental School….” and subsequently commented: “In the 1960s, … had gone to an event of the Greek Shipowners; at the reception was …, who was wearing …’s hat as he always habitually did. So … gives him a slap and knocks it down, telling him ‘what nonsense is this’. … is one thing, … is another, … is yet another. … wore the jockey cap so the bald head wouldn’t shine in the flashes — that’s one of his many complexes”. 69. On 5-6-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “May the good God cut years off the disgusting wicked old hag who swims in theft and lies, and give them to my mighty machine, the …, for the joy I get thanks to it every time I press the start button on my little Audi!”. 70. On 6-6-2021 at an unspecified time, two days after the hearing before the Almopia Magistrate’s Court of the application for interim measures of his wife as manager of the pharmacy company against the first plaintiff, regarding the suspension of execution of payment order No. ./2021 being pursued thereunder and of the writ of execution served thereunder, where the first plaintiff had testified unsworn and referred to his wife with the word “lady”, he posted and wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “Whore, if you have nothing to say to the Lady, go and tell it to your Husband — you’re late…”. 71. One day later, namely on 7-6-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the first two plaintiffs, the following: “The wicked old hag and her bastard filed a criminal complaint (mínysi) against the Lady, against me and against another 12 people. Even the strays outside the Courts in Edessa are laughing! You wretches, file a complaint also against my Father because he made me — at least I know who my Father is, not like the little bastard who’s still searching… As I saw things with my own eyes, the wicked old hag is one step short of Dafni Mental Hospital…”. Below the said post of his, an exchange of comments took place between him and his online friends, among them the user with the profile name “…”, who commented the following: “You have connections… send her for a psychiatric evaluation…”, while the user with the profile name “…” commented the following: “Give them pain, Chief, into the cunts of the mud!!!”. His online friend with the username “…” also commented the following: “Is she really that wicked an old hag?”. 72. On 9-6-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring again to the second plaintiff and indirectly also to the first plaintiff, the following: “My little …, I still feel sympathy for you because I know that you are good-hearted and unfortunate. I also know you have become a will-less plaything of the Wicked Old Hag, of … and of …, but lies have very short legs, even shorter than yours. At this very moment in the sky of A… a brilliant sun is reigning; if I say that it’s snowing, will anyone believe me? The lies they made you tell, my little … — do you think there was anyone to believe them? What more must happen for you to understand that the myth they imposed on you to maintain has collapsed catastrophically? What more must happen for you to realise that the Wicked Old Hag and … exploited you to succeed in their illegal schemes? So do you really still believe that these rotten people wanted what was good for you? So do you still believe in the high connections that the Tin Can deceived you with, who would help you against the evidence and common sense? The only thing that strikes me painfully is how you accepted to tell such glaringly obvious lies, so you too are not of moral substance. Only one thing remains for you, my little …, while you still have very little time before the heavy axe of Justice falls, and that is a sincere apology that may even be accepted…”. 73. On 22-6-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the first plaintiff, the following: “Wicked old hag, paranoia is to keep maintaining the same blatantly false thing without evidence and proof, expecting a different result from the previous time — something completely impossible. As I saw you up close a few days ago, you are unrepentant and ruthless, but as you probably don’t know — because among all your other defects you are also half-educated — after Hubris comes Nemesis…”. 74. The very next day, namely on 23-6-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “Wicked old hag, you’ve sown winds, you’ll reap storms, find a hole to hide in…”. The above post was commented on, on the one hand, by his online friend with the username “…”: “STILL, MY FRIEND…ENOUGH ALREADY”, and on the other hand by another online friend of his with the username “…”, as follows: “May she have a foul death”. 75. On 28-6-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted a photograph of the third plaintiff with a friend, without his consent, and above it wrote the following: “While you wait for the Investigating Judge’s summons and adjust your sartorial choices accordingly. Cunt, are you smiling?? Soon you’ll be crying… It will also be written in Diavgeia”. 76. On 5-7-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the first plaintiff, the following: “The fraud’s punishment is not that he doesn’t convince others, but that he can’t trust anyone, eh wicked old hag?”. 77. A few days later, and namely on 14-7-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted on his personal blog – profile, with the username now “…”, as he had also done in the past on 17-10-2020, the following phrase: “THE JEALOUSY OF A FRIEND IS WORSE THAN THE HATRED OF AN ENEMY…”, writing above this phrase the following comment: “That of the unfortunate relative who has no personal, professional and family life — even worse…”, referring clearly to the first two plaintiffs, his wife’s relatives. 78. On the same day, namely on 14-7-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring clearly to the plaintiffs, the following: “Damn your lineage, …, only one was male — your Father — and he died at 52, younger even than me. Is it possible for these tatters to take me into their filthy mouths, damn them all”. 79. On the same day, 14-7-2021 at an unspecified time, he wrote and posted, referring among others to the third plaintiff, above a photograph of his, also the following: “The castings have begun for the upcoming GNTM, now also with old farts… PS: and this peasant, … de-villaged him and behold the results…”. The defendant’s friend with the username “…” commented: “The Carnival of Thessaloniki”, “Karagiozis with a capital K”, “the tiger of slaps in the face, the rag has eaten plenty of slaps”. His other online friend with the profile name “…” comments: “Variant gay?”, and the defendant replies: “yes, my friend, the Tiger of Kalamaria”, and another with the profile name “…” comments: “FOR SURE, …, THE TRIODION OPENED EARLIER THIS YEAR, BECAUSE OF COVID… SO ALL THE LITTLE FLOWERS WOULD HAVE TIME TO PARADE…”. 80. On 24-7-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted a phrase which he attributes to … and which read as follows: “The world, then, is divided into two categories — totally checked: into those who have a problem and those who are a problem. Those who are a problem usually lean on certain others who, as a result, have a problem from those who are a problem. But when those who have a problem get scared and slightly empty those who are a problem, then those who are a problem are no longer a problem, but are people who have a problem. And somehow that’s how life comes back into order, my warlike tribe!” and below it he wrote, referring clearly to the second plaintiff, the following: “What the late lady wrote — though a bit tiring — fits like a glove the case of the bastard …, which because it also has very low IQ has not yet understood how many serious problems it will have immediately…”. On this post, an online friend of his with the username “…” commented as follows: “…, you mean she’ll understand what you wrote?”, while the defendant replies the following: “the hair-dyer who took her as his child will explain it to her…”. 81. On 25-7-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote the following, referring to the first plaintiff: “Honestly, how many years do reptiles live? I don’t know — my mother-in-law is turning 66”. 82. On 3-8-2021 at an unspecified time he wrote and posted, above a photograph of the third plaintiff, the following comment: “My handsome man, all of Kalamaria is waiting for your magic wand to turn it into Mykonos, all the Pontians are waiting for your magic recipe!”, a post on which comments were made by his online friends, indicatively: “Pleated skirt and a carnation in the ear!!”, “the ice cream seller of Mykonos, scram, you rag”, “Picture-perfect doll!!!… (come on, Holy Mother, may no other evil befall you!!!)..”, with the defendant replying: “this one could play the … in the Lord of the Rings without makeup; even his character is the same”. 83. On 10-8-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the second plaintiff, the following: “Sweet is sleep at dawn, naked the arse on Easter — eh, …, the worst is yet to come”. 84. Two (2) days later, on 12-8-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the second plaintiff, the following: “When you dig a hole for someone else, you fall in yourself — when you are …, you don’t need it deep….”. 85. On 16-8-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, addressing the first plaintiff, the following: “What’s the news, wicked old hag, where the hell did you disappear to? A whole summer and you didn’t send us even a single lawsuit, you didn’t file a single complaint against us, to make me worry…?”. 86. On 28-8-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted a report from an online site referring to a “firing squad” for wild boars being set up by the Penteli Forestry Service in Ekali, and wrote, addressing the first plaintiff, the following: “The wicked old hag was saying 2 months ago at the Almopia Magistrate’s Court ‘we are afraid to go out at night’, it was even recorded in the audio minutes — imagine now that the wild boars are also after her!!!”. 87. On 17-11-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted on his personal blog-profile with the username now “…”, continuation of his previous profile, a publication from the online site “….gr” entitled “Why grandmothers feel greater joy when they come into contact with their grandchildren…” and wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “I, on the other hand, know a wicked old hag who doesn’t want to see either her children or her grandchildren, but only the bank deposit books she has in the black bag she keeps under her arm — only those make her feel happy…”. 88. On 1-12-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted a saying which he attributes to Saint Paisios: “The man who is moved only by his self-interest is useless”, above which he wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “Imagine, then, how useless and rotten to the marrow is a ‘mother’ who, for her self-interest, attempts to harm her children… Wicked old hag, the only sure thing is that you will burn in Hell”. 89. On 9-12-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the first and third of the plaintiffs, the following: “I love the USA for 1,000 and 1 reasons, the main one being that it is the Country of freedom of expression of opinions and feelings. You are a Member of Parliament, you have a hobby-passion with weapons, you gather your family and produce a Christmas greeting card with heavy weaponry, because that’s how you fancy it — what don’t you understand? In Greece your wretched mother-in-law, your ex, your wife’s uncle and every kind of unfortunate snotty creature who hates you would all run to denounce to the local Police Department that 10 years ago you had stuck the machine gun you are holding in the photo up his arse, and the plain-clothes police would come to turn your house upside-down to find it, what don’t you understand…? God bless America”. 90. On the same day, 9-12-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted a publication from an online site which read as follows: “Murder in Glyfada: He killed his mother’s partner and surrendered to the police”, and wrote, commenting on this news, addressing implicitly but clearly the first plaintiff, the following: “He did half a job — he should have also taken out the wicked old hag, now this one will rot in prison and she’ll find another one…”. Indeed, he didn’t stop only at that, but subsequently went on to comment: “Since the hair-dyer was eating up her money, he did well to slaughter him; if I were a Judge I’d recognise all the mitigating circumstances provided by the Penal Code (PK)”. 91. On 17-12-2021 at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “Wicked old hag, happy and festive days are approaching, I’m truly curious how you square all that you have done with your conscience? In the 1970s when you were studying in Thessaloniki and were boarded under a paper of indigence at the YWCA, what were you taught — perhaps that money is God, perhaps that you must systematically rob your children, perhaps that you must shack up with a lover 3 months after your husband died, perhaps that you must commit perjury repeatedly….? I wholeheartedly wish that you soon burn in hell for all you have done and continue to do”. 92. On 20-5-2022, at around 08:54, he posted and wrote, referring to the plaintiffs, the following: “To tell the truth you need a 1.5-page memorandum. To tell lies, a criminal complaint (mínysi) of 220 pages and two memoranda of 120 and 84 pages respectively… You scoundrels deserve many kicks, even the strays around the Courts in Edessa are laughing…”. 93. On 22-5-2022, at an unspecified time, he posted and wrote, referring to the plaintiffs, the following: “I have never threatened anyone. Threats are made by little kids, little women, dandies. They tell you ‘you’ll see what will happen’ and nothing ever happens. The serious man doesn’t threaten, he settles things straight…”. 94. To make it clear to the plaintiffs that he was not joking, the very next day, namely on 23.5.2022 at around 15:09, he posted and wrote, above a photograph of the well-known “godfather of the night”, who was murdered in a settling of scores in 2018, whom he presents as his best man — as is his standard tactic before civil and criminal trials between the plaintiffs and his wife — the following: “My late best man has said many wise words that I keep constantly in mind. ‘Some little fags are better fucked when they are small because in any case it’ll be necessary to fuck them when they grow up’. I’ll never forget you my friend, and may we be slow to meet again…”. 95. On 24-5-2022 at around 21:12, having learned that on 19-5-2022 …, a pharmacist of the area of A…, had testified as a witness before the Investigating Judge regarding the second and third plaintiffs, but also that he would again testify as a witness before the same Investigating Judge on the criminal complaint statement of 8-4-2021 of the plaintiffs against him, he posted and wrote, referring to the said plaintiffs and to the witness, the following: “The two cholera-women brought me as a perjurer the non-existent one, the bankrupt, the forger, whose shop’s shelves have only cobwebs, whom his wife abandoned and took his children, to testify as an expert — go drop dead, you wanker… If they paid you more than 100€, you sucker, you really got it, you tinpot”. 96. On 3-7-2022, at an unspecified time, he reposted an article from the online site “….gr”, in which there was a photograph of the third plaintiff, reproducing and displaying photographs of him without his consent, and wrote the following: “I make no comment, the conclusions are yours… The also-deceased … elected to the Municipality of Kalamaria had released a vinyl record in the 1980s entitled ‘glorify me!’, it fits like a glove to the case! The pride of Kalamaria, the inspirer of …”. Additionally, he also commented the following: “The reliable and serious witness of the satanic wicked old hag, the conclusions you draw yourselves”, publishing indeed under this comment, again without the consent of the third plaintiff, a photograph of him. On this post, various comments were made by online friends of the defendant, among them: “Is the photo from the court against the bad wolf?”, with the defendant replying the following: “how much you know… It’s at a café opposite the Courts, having just completed her testimony against me”, while other users commented: “hahaha, what a pity I transferred my voting rights to Athens, hahaha”, “How are the courts dealing with this clown who comes as a witness against you, …?”, to which the defendant answers: “only him does the wicked old hag have to come and tell lies, that’s why he’s a defendant for felony fraud upon the court” and to a further comment by another user: “This thing with perjurers in the civil courts is completely stupid… So what??? especially in inheritance, wills, etc., it’s tragic and without papers, without anything, I’m just saying my nonsense…”, the defendant replies: “the good thing is that there are some forgotten documents that the side of the fraudsters doesn’t remember, and in the end the truth shines, old friend!”, while finally another online friend of the defendant commented the following: “He’s now a complete laughingstock nationwide, they’ve recognised the clown everywhere!!”. 97. On 19-7-2022, at an unspecified time, he posted a photograph depicting his wife …, daughter, sister and niece of the plaintiffs respectively, above which he wrote the following comment: “14 years of love are completed these days with the most amazing woman! She gave me 2 fantastic children and a sacrificial mother-in-law!”, further replying (to a comment by an online friend) the following: “it could very well be the case, my best man! She sacrificed her children & grandchildren for …, the Agriniote, her lover”. 98. On 26-7-2022 at an unspecified time, he posted on his personal blog-profile on the social media platform Facebook with the username now “…”, continuation of his previous profile, the following aphorism of Winston Churchill: “You will never reach your destination if you stop and throw stones at every dog that barks at you”, and above it he wrote, referring to the first plaintiff, the following: “Satanic wicked old hag, when Winston said this saying he could very well have had you in mind and all the dung-dogs you have gathered around you to harm me, which however only bark, especially that old, helpless dog without teeth from the godforsaken village of your hair-dyer’s horns… I feel so good this summer!”. The defendant, using his personal Facebook profile, with the aforementioned posts-publications which were public and visible to any third party, some of which refer expressly to the persons of the plaintiffs and others imply them, without however leaving any doubt to third parties that they concern the plaintiffs, intentionally infringed their personality repeatedly and over a long period. It should be noted that no doubt arises that the manager of the profile on which the aforementioned posts took place is the defendant, because no third party could know so many aspects of the plaintiffs’ private life, as well as of the dispute with the defendant’s wife, nor moreover can the construction of a fake profile be attributed to the plaintiffs through which they would defame themselves to take revenge on the defendant; the defendant’s allegations to the contrary are rejected, since, despite the plaintiffs’ demands, it does not appear that he requested the deletion of the said profile as fake by reporting to the administrators of the online platform Facebook. Specifically, the defendant, on the occasion of his wife’s dispute with the first two plaintiffs over financial issues concerning the pharmacy business and the witness testimony given in their favour by the third plaintiff, chose to defame the plaintiffs, with the obvious aim of diminishing their personality, in all its individual manifestations and expressions, using the aforementioned threatening, insulting and generally offensive and demeaning characterisations and additionally directing threats against them, in order to break, on the one hand, the morale of the first two plaintiffs in the context of asserting their rights regarding the aforementioned financial matter, and on the other hand the intention of the third plaintiff to testify again as a witness in their favour. Specifically, as regards the first plaintiff, the defendant repeatedly referred to her with the word “wicked old hag”, “rotten”, characterised her in various ways as immoral, exposing in a demeaning manner elements of her private life, as a person who only cares about money, who envies her daughter and himself, and wished in various ways for her death, mocking the prospect of its occurrence with his online friends. As regards the second plaintiff, the defendant referred repeatedly with insulting and offensive characterisations to her congenital health problem, mocking her appearance, directly and knowingly falsely disputing her paternity, in order to demonstrate to an indeterminate number of persons that she is not entitled to a share of her father’s estate, and also presenting her as a will-less being who envies her sister and obeys the immoral aspirations of her mother (the first plaintiff), in order, knowingly, to obtain financial benefits to which she is not entitled. As regards the third plaintiff, the defendant repeatedly reposted, without his consent, photographs of him, which he accompanied with offensive comments regarding his sexual orientation, his sartorial choices and his general appearance, exchanging with his online friends comments that were insulting and demeaning towards his person and publicly characterising him as a perjurer, in the knowledge that no conviction was ever issued against him for the offence of false testimony. Consequently, the defendant, by the above conduct, committed a tort against the plaintiffs, infringing their personality, and the consequences of this infringement occurred both in the local communities of A… and Thessaloniki and in Athens, where the first two plaintiffs reside. Specifically, any third party, Facebook user, online friend or otherwise of the defendant, could have access to the said public posts and become aware of the offensive posts of the defendant, forming a negative impression of the plaintiffs. From this infringement of their personality, the plaintiffs experienced sorrow, grief and inability to protect themselves in their social environment, and therefore suffered moral damages for the redress of which they are entitled to reasonable pecuniary compensation. Taking into account the circumstances of the commission and the nature of the defendant’s tort, namely through the widely known online platform of Facebook, the public access thereto, the repeated infringements over a long period, the intensity of the defendant’s intent, namely the purpose of publicly humiliating the plaintiffs and discouraging them from the pending dispute with his wife, in the context of their mutual financial claims, the consequences of the infringement, namely the fact that an indeterminate number of persons not only became aware of the offensive posts but additionally formulated insulting and generally offensive comments of similar content about the plaintiffs, the social and financial situation of the parties, namely the defendant as a lawyer, with a wide circle of acquaintances and financial standing — given that, among other things, by his own statement, for many years he visits luxury resorts for the New Year’s celebration (in St. Moritz and in 2020 he had prepaid in Courchevel) — and of the plaintiffs, namely the first plaintiff (67 years old) and the second plaintiff (37 years old, pharmacist), who own real property in Pefki and Nea Erythraia, Attica, as well as the third plaintiff (65 years old) who maintains in the city of Thessaloniki eight (8) secondary education tutoring schools under the trading name “.-… O.E.” and is an active member of the local government in the city of Thessaloniki and specifically in the Municipality of Kalamaria, where he was elected municipal councillor and subsequently served as President of all the Municipal Enterprises of Kalamaria, the plaintiffs are entitled, as reasonable pecuniary compensation, the first plaintiff to the sum of EUR 12,000.00 and each of the second and third plaintiffs to the sum of EUR 10,000.00. Therefore, the lawsuit under consideration must be partially upheld as well-founded on the merits and the defendant must be ordered to pay to the first plaintiff the sum of EUR 12,000.00 and to each of the second and third plaintiffs the sum of EUR 10,000.00, with legal interest from the service of the lawsuit. Additionally, the defendant must be ordered to delete from his personal Facebook profile the aforementioned posts that are offensive to the plaintiffs and to publish, visibly to the public, on the personal profile he uses under any variation of his name (indicatively “…” or “…” or “…” or “…”), a summary of this judgment, with the defendant being sentenced to a monetary penalty of EUR 1,000.00 for each day of breach of this obligation in favour of each of the plaintiffs. Additionally, given the duration and the repeated, undiminished intensity of the infringement of the plaintiffs, but also the fact that the dispute between them at civil and criminal level is pending, there is a well-founded threat of imminent infringement of the plaintiffs, and for this reason the defendant must be ordered to refrain from any post on Facebook from his personal profile under any variation of his name, in which he refers, directly or indirectly, with offensive expressions to the person of each of the plaintiffs, under threat of a monetary penalty of EUR 1,000.00 and personal detention of one (1) month for each repetition of the infringement in favour of each of the plaintiffs. Finally, in proportion to the extent of the parties’ victory and defeat, part of the plaintiffs’ court costs must be imposed on the defendant, as more specifically set out in the operative part (Articles 176, 178, 191(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (KPolD)).
FOR THESE REASONS
JUDGING with the parties present.
PARTIALLY UPHOLDS the lawsuit.
ORDERS the defendant to pay to the first plaintiff the sum of twelve thousand euros (€12,000.00) and to each of the second and third plaintiffs the sum of ten thousand euros (€10,000.00), with legal interest from the day after service of the lawsuit until full payment.
ORDERS the defendant (a) to delete from his personal Facebook profile the posts referred to in the historical part of the present judgment that are offensive to the plaintiffs, and (b) to publish, visibly to the public, on the personal profile he uses on Facebook under any variation of his name, a summary of this judgment containing the elements required by law (Article 1(6) of Law 1178/1981), within fifteen (15) days of service of the final judgment.
SENTENCES the defendant to a monetary penalty of one thousand euros (€1,000.00) in favour of each of the plaintiffs, for each day of delay in performance of the immediately above obligation.
ORDERS the defendant to refrain in future from any post on Facebook, from the personal profile he uses under any variation of his name, in which he refers, directly or indirectly, with offensive expressions to the person of each of the plaintiffs.
THREATENS, against the defendant, a monetary penalty of one thousand euros (€1,000.00) and personal detention of one (1) month, in favour of each of the plaintiffs, for each breach of the immediately above order.
IMPOSES part of the plaintiffs’ court costs on the defendant, which it sets, for the first plaintiff, at the sum of five hundred euros (€500.00) and, for each of the second and third plaintiffs, at the sum of four hundred euros (€400.00).
DECIDED and adjudicated in Athens on 4-4-2024.
THE PRESIDENT THE CLERK
PUBLISHED at an extraordinary public session, in its courtroom, in Athens, on 15/4/2024, without the presence of the parties and their authorised lawyers.
THE PRESIDENT THE CLERK
- See also article Online Fraud
- See also article Bank Liability in Online Fraud
- See also article New Law 2023 on Bank Liability
- See also article Investment Fraud Lawyer
- See also article Child Pornography
- See also article Defamation through Facebook
- See also article Cyberbullying
- See also article Computer Fraud
- See also article Hacking
- See also Methods of Internet Attacks
- See also article Malicious Software
- See also article Online Attacks
- See also article Online Piracy
- See also article Software Piracy
- See also article Drug Trafficking
- See also article 10 Security Practices
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON COMPENSATION FOR FACEBOOK POSTS
1. What can I claim for offensive Facebook posts?
Anyone whose personality is infringed by social media posts has a broad legal arsenal under Articles 57, 59 and 914 of the Civil Code (AK). Specifically, a lawsuit can be filed seeking the removal of the infringement (deletion of the posts), its abstention in future, the publication of a summary of the judgment on the defendant’s profile, and pecuniary compensation for moral damages. Case-law, as shown in judgment 908/2024 of the Athens Multi-Member Court of First Instance, awards significant sums and imposes a monetary penalty per day of breach, as well as personal detention for each repetition of the infringement.
2. How much compensation is awarded for defamatory posts?
The amount of pecuniary compensation for moral damages is determined at the discretion of the court, on the basis of the type of infringement, the extent of publicity, the duration, the repetition, the social position of the parties and the gravity of the expressions. In cases involving systematic, abusive and defamatory posts on a public profile, amounts typically range in several thousand euros per affected party. In judgment 908/2024 the plaintiffs claimed €45,000 and €40,000 respectively. The exact sum depends on the facts and on proof of the extent of the harm.
3. How are posts proven in court?
Social media posts are proven by printouts (screenshots) bearing time-stamps, by notarial certifications of website content, by testimony of persons who saw the posts, and by any suitable electronic means. The timely securing of evidence plays a decisive role, since the perpetrator may delete the posts. It is recommended to immediately photograph the posts, save the URLs and, in serious cases, obtain notarial certification. Furthermore, the lawyer can request a data preservation order through a prosecutorial directive.
4. Within what time must I file the lawsuit?
The claim arising from tort is subject to a five-year statute of limitations starting from knowledge of the damage and of the liable party, pursuant to Article 937 of the Civil Code (AK). Nonetheless, prompt action is critical for the protection of the affected party, as every day that the offensive posts remain online multiplies the harm. In parallel, a formal complaint can be filed for defamation and insult within three months of knowledge of the act. The assistance of a lawyer from the first days ensures the preservation of evidence and the timely commencement of proceedings.
5. What if the perpetrator continues the offensive posts?
The court, in addition to the deletion of existing posts, can order the perpetrator to refrain in future from any offensive reference, under threat of a monetary penalty (typically €1,000 per breach) and personal detention (up to one month), as provided by Article 947 of the Code of Civil Procedure (KPolD). At each new breach, the affected party can request the imposition of these penalties. In parallel, the right is preserved to file a new lawsuit for additional moral damages and to file a new formal complaint. Judicial protection operates cumulatively and as a deterrent.
6. What is the role of the lawyer in an online infringement case?
The lawyer undertakes from the outset the securing of evidence, the sending of an extra-judicial notice with a request for deletion, the drafting and filing of a lawsuit with all lawful claims (removal, abstention, pecuniary compensation, publication of judgment), and the filing of a formal complaint for the corresponding criminal offences. ZIAMPARAS D. & ASSOCIATES has specialised experience in cybercrime cases and infringement of personality through the internet, with effective handling of both the civil and criminal dimensions, ensuring the maximum possible protection of the affected party.