Under Article 363 of the Penal Code (PK), the offence of defamation (συκοφαντική δυσφήμηση) is committed by anyone who asserts a false fact capable of harming another person’s honour or reputation, while knowing it to be false; the offender is punished with imprisonment and a monetary penalty. The associates of our law firm have handled numerous cases of defamation, as well as cases of simple defamation, defending the accused and securing acquittal — either by proving that the fact considered defamatory was true and that the defendant should therefore not be convicted, or by proving that the elements of the offence were not satisfied, either because the statement was a mere allegation or opinion rather than a false fact, or because it was not capable of harming the complainant’s honour or reputation.

What is defamation?

Q: How can I avoid conviction for defamation?

If it is proved that the fact is true, or it is not proved to be false, the offence is not made out. If the statement is a mere opinion or characterisation without reference to a specific fact, the objective elements of the offence are missing. If the defendant believed the assertion to be true, direct intent is absent. Finally, the plea of protection of a right or justified interest may be raised, negating the unlawful character of the act.

Q: What should I do if summoned to a preliminary examination or preliminary investigation?

No defence statement or testimony should be given without a lawyer. The defendant has the right to silence and to a deadline for preparing a memorandum. A detailed written memorandum with supporting evidence (messages, witnesses, documents) is often preferred. Proper documentation from the outset can lead to dismissal by the public prosecutor, without the case ever reaching the courtroom.

Q: What are my chances of acquittal?

The prospects of acquittal are, as a rule, high, because the complainant bears the burden of proving both the falsity of the fact and the defendant's knowledge of that falsity, elements difficult to establish beyond reasonable doubt. The case-law of Areios Pagos requires specific reasoning of direct intent of knowledge, failing which the judgment is set aside. Each case, however, is judged on its own factual circumstances.

If a person asserts or disseminates before a third party a false fact concerning another, capable of harming that other person’s honour or reputation, and the offender knew the fact to be false, the offender is punished with imprisonment of at least three months.

Prosecution upon formal complaint

Defamation is prosecuted, under the general provisions, only upon formal complaint (έγκληση); if the person entitled to file the complaint does not do so within three months from the day on which they learned of the commission of the act and of its perpetrator, or of one of the participants, the punishability of the act is extinguished.

Assertion or dissemination

An assertion exists where the defendant communicates the fact as their own conviction, regardless of the manner in which that conviction arose. Dissemination exists where the defendant further transmits another person’s assertion regarding a fact, without adopting that assertion as their own. Dissemination may also occur where the defendant transmits, through the press, another person’s assertion concerning a third party. Defamation through the press may also be committed by posting or affixing an advertising leaflet containing defamatory assertions. The publication on the internet of a text containing defamatory facts does not constitute an offence committed through the Press. If the perpetrator commits defamation by including defamatory assertions in their statement before the investigating judge, and subsequently gives a further statement before the investigating judge, referring to and reaffirming the previous statement that contained the defamatory assertions, the perpetrator commits a fresh act of defamation.

Third party in defamation

The notion of “third party” includes anyone, other than the defamed person, whether a natural person or an authority, who became aware in any manner of the defamatory assertion or dissemination, provided that the fact is reprehensible for the person to whom it is attributed. The notion of third party therefore also includes persons who became aware of the defamatory assertion or dissemination in any manner, even in the performance of their duties, such as

judges, and
public prosecutors, and
court clerks, and
lawyers, and
bailiffs, and
members of disciplinary councils, committees, independent authorities, etc.

The contrary view — that the offence of simple or aggravated defamation is not made out where the defamatory fact is communicated through the contents of a pleading that comes to the attention of the judge, the public prosecutor, the court clerk and, in general, persons institutionally competent (i.e. specifically, constitutionally and procedurally authorised to examine such pleadings and required to take notice of their contents), on the ground that such persons do not fall within the notion of “third party” — is not supported by the literal wording of Articles 362 and 363 of the Penal Code (PK). According to the linguistic meaning of the word, a “third party” is anyone who is not party to the relationship existing between two persons, so that the term covers, without distinction, every natural person who is neither the perpetrator nor the victim of the offence.

Fact capable of harming another’s honour or reputation

“Honour” denotes the good name and the esteem enjoyed by an individual in society on the basis of the moral worth they possess as a result of having complied with moral and legal rules. “Reputation” denotes the good name and the esteem enjoyed by an individual in society on the basis of their social standing, derived from the qualities and abilities they possess for the performance of their particular social functions or profession. A fact capable of harming another’s honour or reputation is any specific event of the external world, relating to the past or the present, perceptible by the senses and capable of being proved, contrary to law, morality and propriety, attributed to a particular person and resulting in a manifest diminution of that person’s honour and reputation. The notion also covers any specific conduct or relationship of a person, relating to the past or the present, where it is directly connected to something that has occurred and is attributed to a particular person, resulting in a manifest diminution of that person’s honour and reputation.

The notion of “fact” may also encompass the expression of an opinion or a value judgment, as well as characterisations, where these are linked and related to specific circumstances constituting a fact in such a way that they essentially determine its quantitative and qualitative gravity, and, in the particular case, amount to an infringement of the personality of the person concerned. Mere judgments, opinions or characterisations which, according to common understanding, call into question the social or moral worth of the victim, or express contempt or scorn for them, without being linked to a specific fact, may give rise to the offence of insult. False assertions portraying a lawyer as acting unlawfully against their clients for personal gain may constitute defamation.

False fact

If the fact capable of harming honour or reputation is proved to be true, the offence of defamation or simple defamation is not made out. If it is not proved that the fact capable of harming honour or reputation is false, and there are doubts as to its truth or falsity, the offence of defamation is not made out.

Knowledge of the falsity of the fact

If the defendant believes the assertion to be true, the offence of defamation is not made out.

Standalone plea of act in protection of a right or out of justified interest

The unlawful character of simple defamation or insult is also negated where the conduct that infringes another’s honour or reputation is engaged in for the protection of a right of the perpetrator or out of another justified interest, provided that such conduct constitutes, in the particular case, the necessary and objectively required measure for the protection of the right or the satisfaction of the justified interest, without which their protection could not otherwise be secured, and provided that the perpetrator was motivated to engage in the offending conduct exclusively for that purpose.

From 1 July 2019, where a formal complaint has been filed for defamation or simple defamation, and the fact to which the defamation relates constitutes a punishable act of another person for which a criminal prosecution has already been initiated, the public prosecutor at the court of first instance, following the preliminary examination concerning the defamation and after obtaining the concurring opinion of the public prosecutor at the court of appeals, shall by formal act adjourn any further action until the conclusion of the prosecution against the other person.

Reasoning of a criminal judgment on defamation

Direct intent (άμεσος δόλος) exists where the perpetrator commits the act in the knowledge of a particular circumstance. Specific intent (υπερχειλής δόλος) exists where the perpetrator commits the act with the purpose of bringing about a specific criminal result. The existence of direct intent, where required by law for the establishment of the subjective element of the offence, must be specifically reasoned in the judgment by reference to circumstances justifying that knowledge; otherwise there is a defect in the reasoning as to that element, giving rise to a ground for cassation.

Statute of limitations

Limitation of the criminal offence

If the limitation period for the punishable act expires, the punishability of the act is extinguished. The limitation period for misdemeanours is five years, running from the day on which the punishable act was committed. The limitation period is suspended for the duration of the main proceedings, and until the conviction becomes final and irrevocable, but for no longer than three years.

Action for pecuniary compensation for moral damages arising from defamation

Where the plaintiff has suffered moral damage and the defendant is at fault, whether through intent or negligence, an obligation arises to provide pecuniary compensation for moral damages. Anyone who, intentionally or negligently, commits defamation — whether knowing of, or culpably ignorant of, the falsity of the facts — is obliged to compensate the other party. As a civil tort, defamation may be subjectively founded on mere negligence on the part of the perpetrator.

What is false denunciation?

If a person knowingly and falsely lodges a denunciation against another, or reports to an authority that the latter has committed a punishable act or a disciplinary offence, with the purpose of causing prosecution against them, the offender is punished with imprisonment of at least one year.

Content of a judgment for false denunciation

For the reasoning of a criminal conviction to be sufficient, the factual circumstances establishing the offence must be set out, namely

the lodging of the criminal complaint or the report before the authority, and
the criminal act being denounced, and
the perpetrator’s knowledge of the falsity of the denounced circumstances, and
the perpetrator’s purpose of causing prosecution of the falsely denounced person.

See also the article on Bodily Harm
See also the article on Narcotics
See also the article on Fraud
See also the article on Forgery
See also the article on Embezzlement
See also the article on Negligent Homicide
See also the article on Tax Evasion

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON DEFAMATION – FALSE DENUNCIATION

1. What sentence do I face if convicted of defamation?

Defamation is punished with imprisonment of at least three months and a monetary penalty, while false denunciation carries imprisonment of at least one year. These are, however, misdemeanours, where significant possibilities for mitigation exist. In the event of conviction, the lawyer may seek suspension of the sentence under Article 99 of the Penal Code (PK), conversion into a monetary penalty under Article 80 PK, or community service under Article 81 PK. In parallel, mitigating circumstances under Article 84 PK are pleaded, such as a previously honest life, repentance, or good conduct after the act. In practice, for a first-instance conviction without prior record, the sentence is generally not enforced.

2. How can I avoid conviction for defamation?

Several lines of defence are available. First, if it is proved that the statement made is true, or simply not proved to be false, the offence is not made out and the principle in dubio pro reo applies. Second, if the statement is a mere opinion, value judgment or characterisation, with no reference to a specific fact, an essential element of the objective elements of the offence is missing. Third, if the defendant believed the assertion to be true, the direct intent of knowledge of falsity is absent. Finally, the standalone plea (αυτοτελής ισχυρισμός) of protection of a right or justified interest may be raised, which negates the unlawful character of the act.

3. What should I do if summoned to a preliminary examination or preliminary investigation?

The first and crucial step is not to give a defence statement or testimony without first consulting a lawyer. The defendant has the right to silence and the right to a deadline for preparing a written memorandum. It is often preferable to submit a detailed written memorandum, with supporting evidence (messages, witnesses, documents) attached, rather than to give an oral statement under pressure. In defamation cases, where the burden of proving falsity and knowledge of falsity lies with the complainant, proper documentation from the outset can lead to dismissal by the public prosecutor, without the case ever reaching the courtroom.

4. How long do criminal proceedings last?

From the lodging of the formal complaint to the first-instance judgment, the time typically ranges from one to three years, depending on the court’s caseload and the complexity of the case. If an appeal is lodged, the final decision may be delayed by a further one to two years. Of significance is the five-year limitation period for misdemeanours, which begins on the date the act was committed and may lead to extinguishment of punishability. In addition, if the defamatory fact concerns a punishable act for which the complainant is already being prosecuted, the prosecuting authority adjourns the proceedings until the conclusion of that trial.

5. What are my chances of acquittal?

The prospects of acquittal in cases of defamation and false denunciation are, as a rule, high, because the complainant bears the burden of proving both the falsity of the fact and the defendant’s knowledge of that falsity. These two elements are difficult to establish beyond reasonable doubt. The case-law of Areios Pagos (the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court) is consistent that direct intent of knowledge must be specifically reasoned in the judgment, failing which the judgment is set aside on cassation. Each case, however, is judged on its own factual circumstances, and an assessment is made only after the case file is studied by a specialist criminal lawyer.

6. What is the role of the lawyer in such cases?

Our firm has handled numerous cases of defamation and false denunciation on behalf of the defendant. The lawyer undertakes the study of the case file, the drafting of the memorandum, the gathering of witnesses and evidence rebutting the falsity or the knowledge of it, and representation at all stages — preliminary, first-instance trial, court of appeal, Areios Pagos. In parallel, the lawyer examines the possibility of bringing a counter-complaint for false denunciation against the person who lodged the unfounded complaint, as well as a civil action for compensation for moral damages where the original complaint is shown to have been untrue.