10 KONSTAS v. GREECE JUDGMENT Deputy Minister of Finance commented “Didn’t you appoint them acting Ministers for the Press, Ministers Plenipotentiary to the Council of Europe, when the Panteion scandals were coming to light?”. It considers that these details made it very easy to identify the applicant as, according to the materials in the case file, none of the other individuals convicted by judgment no. 2444/2007 fitted that description (see Y.B. and Others, cited above, § 48, and Pandy v. Belgium, no. 13583/02, § 45, 21 September 2006). In other words, even though he was not actually named, the comments made by the Deputy Minister of Finance were clearly aimed at the applicant. 40. As to the comments made by the Prime Minister on 2 July 2007 and the Minister of Justice on 12 February 2008, the Court notes that they did not refer directly to the applicant. The Prime Minister called the case an unprecedented scandal of embezzlement of money for personal gain. Speaking before Parliament, the Minister of Justice referred to the “Panteion scandal”, proclaiming that the Greek courts had “boldly and resolutely” convicted all those the opposition had always protected. While those comments did not mention the applicant by name, they nevertheless referred explicitly to the criminal case in question and the people involved in it. The Court further notes that judgment no. 2444/2007 of the Athens Assize Court had convicted the applicant and eight others – that is to say, a well-defined group of people – at first instance. It also attaches particular importance to the fact that decision no. 1969/2005 of the Indictment Division of the Athens Court of Appeal stated that the applicant had “played a major role in the commission of the offences”. What is more, the case was given wide media coverage in Greece and at various times the applicant had occupied the posts of President of Panteion University, acting Minister for the Press and Minister Plenipotentiary to the Council of Europe. These factors suffice for the Court to conclude that because of the applicant’s involvement in the case in question, his status and the posts he had occupied in the past, the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice related to the applicant to a degree that was sufficient to render him identifiable. - The content of the remarks concerned 41. Regarding the Prime Minister, the Court observes that his comments related to the case in question without making any direct reference to the criminal proceedings pending before the Court of Appeal. He could have avoided using the words “unprecedented scandal”, it is true, as they might have been interpreted as giving his comments, and his attitude to the case, a negative connotation. However, all in all the Court finds that the Prime Minister’s remarks should be regarded as a general reference to the subject matter of the case rather than as an attempt to prejudge the Court of Appeal’s verdict.