Ruling on interim measures (ασφαλιστικά μέτρα) imposing restrictive measures, following the breakdown of a relationship, in respect of fake online accounts, impersonation and harassment. The application for interim measures (Patras Single-Member Court of First Instance 295/2020), accompanied by an application for a temporary restraining order, was filed by a man (the applicant) against a woman (the respondent) on account of her continuous harassment of him through telephone calls, defamatory messages on social media and the use of fake accounts. The parties had met via Instagram and subsequently began conversing through Facebook. Although they lived in different cities, they entered into an emotional relationship, with the woman visiting the man at least three times within a month. The relationship ended within a short period. From the moment the man asked her to end the relationship, the woman began harassing him by telephone, sending repeated messages.
After the man blocked the woman on social media and refused to answer her calls, she began to disturb his friends, acquaintances and family members and to create fake accounts on social media holding the man out as the user, sending messages both to him and to his friends and colleagues. Despite the man’s continuous attempts to persuade the woman to cease any contact with him by any means, she did not stop harassing him, not even after the issuing of the temporary restraining order, going so far as to create new fake accounts, in the man’s name or in the names of third parties, on the online platforms Instagram and Facebook, on which she posted conversations purportedly involving the man, with content offensive to him.
The court noted that the woman’s conduct was unlawful and infringed the man’s personality rights, and in particular their specific manifestations regarding honour, private life and the sphere of confidentiality, observing that it weighed upon and disturbed his mental world and caused him problems in his personal and social life. The court, considering it likely that the risk of recurrence of the woman’s conduct was immediate and real, held that interim measures should be ordered which would be capable of ensuring the man’s provisional protection.
Ultimately, the court issued a ruling on interim measures imposing restrictive measures, ordering the woman to cease communicating with the man (in person or by telephone), to refrain from approaching him at a distance of less than fifty (50) metres, and to refrain from making any online posts offensive to the man’s personality. The court further threatened the woman with a monetary penalty of five hundred euros (€500.00) and personal detention of three (3) months for each breach of those terms.
- See also article Interim Measures
- See also article Revocation of Interim Measures Ruling
- See also article Interim Measures for Real Property
- See also article Interim Measures for Possession
- See also article Interim Measures in Family Disputes
- See also article Interim Measures against Facebook/Twitter/Instagram
- See also article on Interim Measures Relocation of Family Home
- See also article on Interim Measures Joint Custody of Children
- See also article on Interim Measures Custody and Child Abduction
- See also article on Interim Measures Change of City for Minor Children
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON INTERIM MEASURES AGAINST FAKE ACCOUNTS AND ONLINE HARASSMENT
1. What am I dealing with when I am harassed through fake accounts?
This constitutes an unlawful infringement of personality rights, affecting honour, private life and the sphere of confidentiality. The creation of fake accounts on Instagram or Facebook using the victim’s name or photograph, the sending of offensive messages to friends, relatives and colleagues, repeated calls and defamatory posts give rise to punishable acts (impersonation, defamation, unlawful processing of personal data) and at the same time to civil liability. The victim may seek immediate judicial protection through interim measures with restrictive terms, in order to halt the conduct before irreparable damage is caused to their personal and professional life.
2. What can I do immediately to stop the harassment?
The most effective remedy is to file an application for interim measures before the Single-Member Court of First Instance, accompanied by an application for a temporary restraining order which is issued within a few days. By means of this application, the court is asked to prohibit the perpetrator from communicating in any way, from approaching the victim within a specified distance, and from making posts or creating accounts in the victim’s name. In parallel, a criminal complaint is filed with the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of First Instance (which forwards the case file to the Cybercrime Prosecution Directorate), together with a request to the platforms to remove the fake profiles. The court further threatens a monetary penalty and personal detention for each breach of the terms.
3. How quickly is the interim measures ruling issued?
The temporary restraining order is usually granted on the same day as, or the day after, the filing of the application, provided that risk is shown to be likely. The hearing on the interim measures is generally scheduled within one to three months, depending on the court’s caseload, and the final ruling is usually issued within two to four months from the hearing. In the meantime, the temporary restraining order remains in force, protecting the victim. In urgent harassment cases, the court treats the matter as a priority, given the continuing and recurring nature of the acts.
4. What evidence do I need in order to succeed?
You will need screenshots of the fake profiles and offensive posts, with visible dates and URL addresses, printouts of the messages and calls, affidavits from friends, relatives or colleagues who received the messages or saw the posts, as well as any medical reports if there has been a psychological impact. Equally important is evidence linking the perpetrator to the accounts (telephone numbers, email addresses, photographs, IP addresses). Systematic and chronological documentation is crucial, since the court must find it likely both that the conduct was unlawful and that there is an immediate risk of recurrence.
5. What are my chances of obtaining the measures?
Where the perpetrator’s conduct and its repetitive character are sufficiently documented, the chances of success are high. Case-law (indicatively, Patras Single-Member Court of First Instance 295/2020) has established a settled line in favour of protecting the victim, ordering a prohibition of communication, a fifty-metre exclusion zone and a prohibition on posting, with the threat of a monetary penalty and personal detention for each breach. Even if the perpetrator continues after the temporary restraining order, this works in favour of the applicant, as it demonstrates the immediate risk of recurrence. Each case is decided on its own facts.
6. What is the lawyer’s role in such cases?
The lawyer takes charge of immediately collecting and legally securing the digital evidence by means of a notarial certification or affidavits, drafts the application for interim measures together with the application for a temporary restraining order, files a criminal complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Court of First Instance (which is forwarded to the Cybercrime Prosecution Directorate), and submits reports to the platforms for the removal of the fake accounts. The Law Firm ZIAMPARAS D. & ASSOCIATES, specialising in Cybercrime, represents the victim in court, monitors compliance with the restrictive terms, and initiates proceedings for the imposition of a monetary penalty and personal detention for each new breach, thereby ensuring comprehensive protection.