CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 1 avril 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s3E39F0D2 { width:24.22pt; display:inline-block } .sED722BC { width:153.78pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 28535/22 Tânia Alexandra FERREIRA E CASTRO DA COSTA LARANJO and Ana   Isabel SALGADO DA FONSECA against Portugal   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1   April 2025 as a Committee composed of:   Tim Eicke , President ,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   András Jakab , judges , and Simeon Petrovski, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   28535/22) 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”) on 3   June   2022 by two Portuguese nationals, Ms Tânia Alexandra Ferreira e Castro da Costa Laranjo and Ms Ana Isabel Salgado da Fonseca, who were born in 1972 and 1987 respectively and live in Lisbon (“the applicants”) and were represented by Ms M. de Azeredo Perdigão, a lawyer practising in Lisbon; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicants are journalists for the well-known tabloid newspaper Correio da Manhã (hereinafter “ CM ”). The application concerns the applicants’ criminal conviction for disclosing information from the case file of pending judicial proceedings without prior judicial authorisation ( desobediência ). The applicants rely on Article 10 of the Convention. 2.     On an unspecified date and in an unspecified manner, the applicants gained access to copies of documents included in the case file of a highly publicised criminal case against a certain P.D. for three counts of murder, robbery and other serious crimes. 3 .     On 3 April 2017 CM published a series of news articles, authored by the applicants, concerning the criminal case against P.D. and disclosing, inter alia , excerpts of the private correspondence exchanged between P.D. and his family, which were part of the respective case file. 4 .     On 26 October 2021, by a judgment of the Lisbon Criminal Court, the applicants were convicted of non-compliance with a legal order ( desobediência ) in accordance with Article 348 § 1 (a) of the Criminal Code (hereinafter “the CC”), Article   88 § 2 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “the CCP”) and sections 30 and 31(1) of the Press Act. Fines were imposed on them amounting to 1,500 euros (EUR) and EUR   520 respectively for disclosing information from the case file of judicial proceedings pending at first-instance level without prior judicial authorisation. 5 .     On 8 February 2022, following an appeal lodged by the applicants, the Lisbon Court of Appeal upheld the first ‑ instance judgment. In particular, it found that the disclosure of P.D.’s private correspondence had been for commercial and sensationalist purposes only, that it had been aimed merely at satisfying the curiosity of a certain readership, and that therefore it had not been carried out in pursuit of the truth. While accepting that the disclosure of criminal actions with a potential impact on perceptions of public safety would be in the public interest, the court observed that the correspondence in question revealed neither the modus operandi nor the degree of violence employed in the commission of the alleged offences. It found that the disclosure of the private correspondence, which essentially revealed the feelings expressed by P.D. to those closest to him, could not be considered as having been made in the public interest. Furthermore, noting that restrictions on freedom of expression were expressly permitted by Article 10 of the Convention, it concluded that the restrictions resulting from the CC and CCP provisions in question were justified by the need to protect the “efficient, impartial and serene administration of justice”, which was a legitimate aim. In this connection the court held that a suspect’s personal communications can provide valuable insights for the investigation as they can help reconstruct the iter criminis and identify other individuals who may bear criminal responsibility, either for their direct involvement in certain acts or for aiding the suspect. 6.     Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the decisions of the domestic courts to impose fines on them for non ‑ compliance with a legal order had breached their right to freedom of expression, and specifically their right to impart information of public interest. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 7.     The Court considers that the applicants’ criminal conviction constituted an interference with their right to freedom of expression under Article 10   §   1 of the Convention. It also finds that the interference was “prescribed by law”, as it was based on the relevant provisions of the CC, the CCP and the Press Act (see paragraph   4 above). It accepts that the interference complained of pursued one of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph   2 of Article 10 of the Convention, namely maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary (see paragraphs 4 and 5 above, and Pinto Coelho v.   Portugal , no.   28439/08, §   33, 28   June 2011). It remains to be ascertained whether the interference complained of was necessary in a democratic society. 8.     The general principles regarding the question whether an interference with the exercise of the right to freedom of expression is “necessary in a democratic society” within the meaning of Article 10 § 2 of the Convention are summarised in   Bédat v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 56925/08, §§   48-82, 29   March 2016). 9.     Examining the present case in the light of the above criteria, the Court notes that the applicants were fined for disclosing excerpts of the private correspondence exchanged between P.D. and his family without having obtained a prior judicial authorisation (see paragraphs 3 and 4 above). 10.     As in other cases it has examined, the Court considers that, although the public has a right to be informed, an article, such as the one in the present case, aimed solely at satisfying the curiosity of a particular readership regarding the feelings expressed by an accused person to his or her family – cannot be deemed to contribute to any debate of general interest ( see, mutatis mutandis , Von Hannover v. Germany , no. 59320/00, § 65, 24 June 2004, and Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no.   40454/07, §   100 , ECHR 2015). The Court therefore sees no reason to depart from the conclusion reached by the domestic courts (see paragraph 5 above), bearing in mind the lack of public interest of the information contained in the article (compare   Bédat , cited above, §§ 63-66). 11.     Lastly, regarding the sanction imposed, the Court observes that the applicants were fined with EUR 1,500 and EUR 520 respectively, which do not appear disproportionate in view of the particular circumstances of the case. 12.     The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the domestic courts struck a fair balance, within their margin of appreciation, between the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and to impart information under Article 10 of the Convention and the competing interests at stake. 13.     It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 24 April 2025.     Simeon Petrovski   Tim Eicke   Deputy Registrar   President