EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FOURTH SECTION

CASE OF FREITAS RANGEL v. PORTUGAL

(Application no. 78873/13)

 JUDGMENT

Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Journalist’s unjustified and disproportionate conviction and sanctioning for statements made about well-known professional associations at a Parliamentary Commission hearing on freedom of expression and the media • Protection of legal entity’s reputation not of the same strength as protection of reputation or rights of individuals • Absence of relevant and sufficient reasons • Narrow margin of appreciation exceeded • Elevated level of protection for an expert invited to speak in Parliament

STRASBOURG

11 January 2022

This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Freitas Rangel v. Portugal,

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

 Yonko Grozev, President,
 Tim Eicke,
 Faris Vehabović,
 Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,
 Pere Pastor Vilanova,
 Jolien Schukking,
 Ana Maria Guerra Martins, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 78873/13) against the Portuguese Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Portuguese national, Mr Emídio Arnaldo Freitas Rangel (“the applicant”), on 5 December 2013;

the decision to give notice to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”) of the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;

the information about the applicant’s death on 13 August 2014 and the wish of his daughters, Ms Ana Sofia Pereira Rangel and Ms Catarina Matias Rangel, to continue the proceedings before the Court in his stead;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 23 November and on 7 December 2021,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that
last-mentioned date:

INTRODUCTION

1. The present application concerns the applicant’s complaint that his conviction for insulting a legal entity (ofensa a pessoa colectiva) on account of statements he made about the Professional Association of Judges (Associação Sindical de Juízes Portugueses – “the ASJP”) and the Professional Association of Public Prosecutors (Sindicato dos Magistrados do Ministério Público – “the SMMP”) at a hearing before the Parliamentary Commission on Ethics, Society and Culture was in breach of his right to freedom of expression as provided for by Article 10 of the Convention.

THE FACTS

2. 2.The applicant, Mr Emídio Arnaldo Freitas Rangel, was a Portuguese national who was born in 1947 and lived in Lisbon. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Correia Afonso, a lawyer practising in Lisbon. By a letter of 9 September 2015, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that Mr Freitas Rangel had died on 13 August 2014 and that his daughters, Ms Ana Sofia Pereira Rangel and Ms Catarina Matias Rangel, had expressed their wish to pursue the application in his stead.
3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms M.F. da Graça Carvalho, Deputy Attorney General.
4. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

(…)

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Holdsthat the applicant’s daughters, Ms Ana Sofia Pereira Rangel and Ms Catarina Matias Rangel, have standing to pursue the proceedings in place of the late applicant;
2. Declaresthe application admissible;
3. Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
4. Holds

(a) that the respondent State is to pay jointly to the applicant’s heirs, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the following amounts:

(i)  EUR 31,500 (thirty-one thousand five hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of pecuniary damage;

(ii) EUR 19,874.23 (nineteen thousand eight hundred and seventy-four euros and twenty-three cents), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant’s heirs, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 11 January 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Andrea Tamietti, Registrar          Yonko Grozev, President

FICHE DÉTAILLÉE

Organe décisionnel Cour (Quatrième Section)

Type de document Arrêt (au principal et satisfaction équitable)

Titre CASE OF FREITAS RANGEL v. PORTUGAL

Requête(s) 78873/13

Niveau d'importance 2

Représenté par CORREIA AFONSO R.

Etat(s) défendeur(s) Portugal

Date de l'arrêt 11/01/2022

Conclusion(s) 

Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage

Just satisfaction)

Article(s)

10

10-1

10-2

41

Op. séparée(s) Non

Droit interne

Articles 183 § 2 and 187 §§ 1 and 2 (a) of the Criminal Code

Article 484 of the Civil Code

Jurisprudence de Strasbourg

Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, § 159, 23 June 2016

Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, § 48, 29 March 2016

Bladet Tromsø and Stensaas v. Norway [GC], no. 21980/93, § 64, ECHR 1999 III

Bozhkov v. Bulgaria, no. 3316/04, § 55, 19 April 2011

Cumpănă and Mazăre v. Romania [GC], no. 33348/96, §§ 113-115, 10 June 2003

Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999 V

Iatridis v. Greece (just satisfaction) [GC], no. 31107/96, § 54, ECHR 2000 XI

Kharlamov v. Russia, no. 27447/07, § 29, 8 October 2015

Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [GC], no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000 XII

Margulev v. Russia, no. 15449/09, 8 October 2019

plus…

Mots-clés

(Art. 10) Liberté d'expression-{général}

(Art. 10-1) Liberté d'expression

(Art. 10-2) Nécessaire dans une société démocratique

(Art. 10-2) Garantir l'autorité et l'impartialité du pouvoir judiciaire

(Art. 10-2) Protection de la réputation d'autrui

(Art. 10-2) Protection des droits d'autrui

(Art. 41) Satisfaction équitable-{général}

(Art. 41) Satisfaction équitable

(Art. 41) Dommage matériel

Marge d'appréciation

plus…

ECLI ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:0111JUD007887313

HUDOC | ECHR | COE https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-214674%22]} ».