Tribunal Europeu dos Direitos Humanos
2024-03-19 / 19:21
Liberdade de expressão: artigo 10.º da CEDH
19-03-2024
(1) CASE OF ALMEIDA ARROJA v. PORTUGAL | 47238/19 | Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) | Court (Fourth Section) | 19/03/2024 | Conclusion(s): Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression) - Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage - Just satisfaction) | Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage - Just satisfaction) |
Document URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-231606
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME
FOURTH SECTION
CASE OF ALMEIDA ARROJA v. PORTUGAL
(Application no. 47238/19)
JUDGMENT
Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Applicant’s criminal conviction for aggravated defamation and causing offence to a legal person for comments made about a law firm and its director on a daily news programme broadcast by a private television channel • Balancing exercise performed by the domestic courts not in conformity with criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law • Absence of relevant and sufficient reasons • Conviction and award of damages manifestly disproportionate • Nature and severity of sanctions capable of having a “chilling effect” • Narrow margin of appreciation exceeded • No reasonable relationship of proportionality between the restriction of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the legitimate aim pursued
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.
STRASBOURG
19 March 2024
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 Almeida Arroja v. Portugal,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, President,
Tim Eicke,
Branko Lubarda,
Anja Seibert-Fohr,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
Anne Louise Bormann,
Sebastian Răduleţu, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 47238/19) 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 José Pedro Almeida Arroja (“the applicant”), on 2 September 2019;
the decision to give notice to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning Article 10 of the Convention and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 20 February 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
- The case concerns a judgment given against the applicant in proceedings for defamation and causing offence to a legal person, in relation to his comments alluding to political interests underlying legal advice provided by a law firm to a public hospital. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complained of a breach of his right to freedom of expression.
THE FACTS
- The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Porto. He was represented by Mr J.J. Ferreira Alves, a lawyer practising in Matosinhos.
- The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms M.F. da Graça Carvalho, Deputy Attorney General, and, after 1 September 2022, Mr Ricardo Bragança de Matos, Public Prosecutor.
- The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
(…)
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
- Declaresthe application admissible;
- Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention:
(i) EUR 10,000 (ten thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;
(ii) EUR 5,000 (five thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, 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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 19 March 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Case Details
Originating Body: Court (Fourth Section)
Document Type: Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction)
Title: CASE OF ALMEIDA ARROJA v. PORTUGAL
App. No(s). 47238/19
Importance Level 2
Respondent State(s): Portugal
Judgment Date: 19/03/2024
Conclusion(s)
Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression - {general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)
Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage
Just satisfaction)
Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage
Just satisfaction)
Article(s)
10
10-1
10-2
41
Separate Opinion(s): No
Domestic Law
Article 187 of the Criminal Code
Articles 70, 484 and 496 of the Civil Code
Strasbourg Case-Law
a/s Diena and Ozoliņš v. Latvia, no. 16657/03, § 81, 12 July 2007
Alves da Silva v. Portugal, no. 41665/07, § 40, 20 October 2009
Amorim Giestas and Jesus Costa Bordalo v. Portugal, no. 37840/10, § 36, 3 April 2014
Anatoliy Yeremenko v. Ukraine, no. 22287/08, § 107, 15 September 2022
Axel Springer AG v. Germany (no. 2), no. 48311/10, 10 July 2014
Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, 7 February 2012
Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, §§ 48-54 and 79, 29 March 2016
Bozhkov v. Bulgaria, no. 3316/04, § 55, 19 April 2011
Cangi v. Turkey, no. 24973/15, § 42, 29 January 2019
Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, ECHR 2015
more…
Keywords
(Art. 10) Freedom of expression-{general}
(Art. 10-1) Freedom of expression
(Art. 10-2) Necessary in a democratic society
(Art. 10-2) Protection of the rights of others
(Art. 10-2) Protection of the reputation of others
(Art. 41) Just satisfaction-{general}
(Art. 41) Pecuniary damage
(Art. 41) Just satisfaction
(Art. 41) Non-pecuniary damage
Margin of appreciation
more…
ECLI ECLI:CE:ECHR:2024:0319JUD004723819
