CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 janvier 2026

.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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s819344C9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s1F2791DA { width:54.9pt; display:inline-block } .s3CEF2599 { width:115.74pt; display:inline-block } .sA3D40E95 { width:52.56pt; display:inline-block } .sA8847899 { width:93.07pt; display:inline-block } .s1721E4C5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sDABEE884 { height:83.35pt } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s5D062762 { height:97.9pt } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s837B788 { height:125.65pt } .sF1DFF07F { height:97.25pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 10873/25 Octávio Manuel MARTINS RIBEIRO against Portugal and 3 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13   January 2026 as a Committee composed of:   Anja Seibert-Fohr, President ,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins,   András Jakab , judges , and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to: the applications 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 the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on 4 April 2025; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The first applicant is the director of a well-known tabloid newspaper   called Correio da Manhã (“CM”), which is part of the same media group as Correio da Manhã T.V. (“CMTV”), where the second, third, and fourth applicants work as journalists. The case concerns a judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal ordering the applicants to pay compensation to F.C., a well-known journalist, for prejudice caused to her reputation by news articles and a broadcast which raised the question of her involvement in a high-profile criminal investigation. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that the court’s decision had infringed their right to freedom of expression. 2 .     On 21 November 2014 a former Prime Minister, J.S., was arrested and given the status of defendant in a criminal investigation into corruption, tax fraud and money laundering. F.C. had been J.S.’s partner for an undetermined period. 3 .     On an unspecified date, a request by journalists at CM, others than the applicants, to intervene as assistants to the public prosecutor ( assistentes ) in the criminal proceedings was granted. As such, they were given access to the case file, including the audio recording of taped telephone conversations, which were used as a source of information by the media company. 4.     On 20 October 2015 CM published an article written by the second, third and fourth applicants titled “F.C. – girlfriend plays with fortune of the ex-head of government”. 5 .     On 6 March 2016 a news report was broadcast by CMTV and an article published in CM, prepared by the third and fourth applicants, titled “ex-wife and ex-girlfriend helped hide the money: [alleged co-conspirator’s wife] and F.C. used [J.]S.’s millions”. The news report alleged that F.C. had planned to buy an apartment with money from an alleged co-conspirator of J.S. and that they had together visited a house worth three million euros, as well as a farm. It further alleged that they had spent 20,000 euros (EUR) in a ten-day rental house during a holiday that the couple had taken with J.S.’s alleged co-conspirator and his wife in the summer of 2014. Moreover the news report stated that journalists from CM, in their capacity as assistants to the public prosecutor in the criminal proceedings (see paragraph 3 above), had requested that F.C. be given the status of defendant in the proceedings, but that their request had been refused. 6 .     On 17 September 2016 CM published an article written by S.T., a CM journalist, titled “F.C. may have been photographed having sex”, in which they alleged that an ex-boyfriend of F.C. had pictures all over his house of them having sex. 7.     On an unspecified date F.C. instituted civil liability proceedings against the first applicant as director of CM, and its journalists, namely the second, third, fourth applicants and S.T., and against the media group. On 31   January   2024 the Lisbon District Court found they were civilly liable towards F.C. and ordered the media group, the applicants and S.T. to pay jointly, in equal amounts, compensation of 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, pursuant to Articles 483 and 484 of the Civil Code, section 14 of the Statute of Journalists (Law no. 1/99, as amended by Law no.   64/2007), and Article 1 §§ 1 and 4 of the Code of Ethics for Journalists. 8 .     Referring to the Court’s case-law and Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, the Lisbon District Court recognised that the ongoing criminal investigation into J.S. (see paragraph 2 above) constituted a matter of public interest. Balancing the applicants’ freedom of expression with F.C.’s right to honour and reputation, it found that there was no evidence to substantiate the use of the expressions “plays with fortune” and “helped hide the money” used in the article published in CM on 20 October 2015 and the broadcast of 6   March 2016, which raised doubts about F.C.’s probity. The Lisbon District Court went on to consider that the use of the expressions in question had gone beyond the right to inform (see paragraphs 3 and 5 above). As regards the article published on 17 September 2016, the District Court found it did not relate to the ongoing investigation into J.S., and therefore, was not a matter of public interest (see paragraph 6 above). 9 .     On 3 December 2024 the Lisbon Court of Appeal confirmed the overall compensation amount to be awarded to F.C. but determined the compensation owed, taking into consideration each article and news report in issue, as follows. For the damage caused due to the article published on 20   October   2015 (see paragraph 3 above), it ordered the four applicants and the media company to pay jointly, in equal amounts, EUR 8,000. For the damage caused by the broadcast of 6 March 2016 (see paragraph 5 above), the first, third and fourth applicants and the media company were ordered to pay jointly, in equal amounts, EUR 10,000. With regard to the damage sustained by F.C. owing to the article written by S.T. and published on 17   September 2016 (see paragraph 6 above), the first applicant was ordered to pay EUR   7,000 jointly in equal amounts with S.T. and the media company. 10 .     In its reasoning, the Lisbon Court of Appeal cited the Court’s judgment in the case of António Emídio and Soares Gomes da Cruz v.   Portugal ([Committee], nos. 75637/13 and 8114/14, 24   September   2019) and referred to the test carried out by the Court in the reasoning of its judgment. Applying the same test to the statement “F.C. plays with fortune”, which was the title of the article of 20 October 2015, and the news report broadcast on 6 March 2016, the Court of Appeal found that they were offensive to F.C.’s honour as they were not based on credible evidence to support the allegations that she had acted illegally, noting that the news report itself stated that she was not given defendant status in the proceedings (see paragraphs 3 and 5 above). As regards the article published on 17   September 2016 (see paragraph 6 above), the Court of Appeal found that it concerned F.C.’s private life and did not contribute to a debate of public interest as it did not concern the criminal investigation pending against J.S. 11.     Relying on Article 10, the applicants complained that the domestic decisions given against them had breached their right to freedom of expression. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 12.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 13.     The Court considers that the judgments delivered against the applicants 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 relevant legislative provisions (see paragraph 9 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 the right to honour and reputation. It remains to be ascertained whether the interference complained of was necessary in a democratic society. 14.     The relevant general principles of the Court’s case-law are well settled and were summarised in Bédat v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 56925/08, §§   48-54, 29   March 2016). The criteria to be applied for balancing the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 against the right to reputation are laid down in Axel Springer AG v. Germany ([GC], no. 39954/08, §§   90-95, 7   February   2012), and Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v.   France ([GC], no.   40454/07, § 93, ECHR 2015 (extracts)). 15.     The Court notes that the applicants were held liable for the publication of three articles in the CM newspaper and a broadcast on CMTV (see paragraphs   3-9 above). 16.     The domestic courts established, and the Court agrees with their findings, that the subject matter of the articles and broadcasts in question (see paragraphs   3-5 above) was a matter of considerable public interest as they concerned a judicial investigation into the former prime minister for corruption, tax fraud and money laundering. As regards the way in which the applicants obtained the material, the Court notes that it was established that they had obtained it from colleagues who were intervening in the criminal proceedings as assistants to the public prosecutor (see paragraph 3 above). 17.     The domestic courts found that the allegations made in the articles and broadcast concerning the ongoing criminal investigation were of a serious nature and went beyond the right to inform, in particular in view of the use of certain expressions and the lack of evidence to support them, as evidenced by the fact that F.C. was not given defendant status in the proceedings (see paragraphs   8 and 10 above). The Court notes that the expressions in question, “helped hide the money” and “plays with fortune”, brought into question F.C.’s probity, seeking to imply that she knew about the wrongdoing under investigation and was involved in J.S.’s alleged criminal activity, despite the lack of a factual basis for such claims. 18.     As regards the article published on 17 September 2016 (see paragraph   6 above), the Court agrees with the domestic court that the subject matter was unrelated to the ongoing investigation, and did not, therefore, contribute to any debate of general interest. As such, it finds that the sole purpose of the article was to satisfy the curiosity of a particular readership regarding the details of F.C.’s private life (see Von Hannover v.   Germany (no.   2) [GC], nos.   40660/08 and 60641/08, § 103, ECHR 2012). 19.     Regarding the nature and the severity of the sanctions imposed, the Court notes that the Lisbon Court of Appeal found that the applicants were civilly liable towards F.C. and ordered them to pay compensation to her for the non-pecuniary damage sustained (see paragraph 9 above). The Court does not find these amounts to be disproportionate in view of the nature and seriousness of the allegations made regarding F.C. 20.     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 under Article   10 of the Convention and F.C.’s right to honour and reputation under Article   8, taking into account the criteria set out in the Court’s case-law. The Court has therefore no reason to substitute its views for those of the domestic courts. 21.     It follows that the applications are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 5 February 2026.     Crina Kaufman   Anja Seibert-Fohr   Acting Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix List of cases: No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 10873/25 Martins Ribeiro v. Portugal 04/04/2025 Octávio Manuel MARTINS RIBEIRO 1961 Lisbon Portuguese Madalena DE AZEREDO PERDIGÃO 2. 10901/25 Salgado Fonseca v. Portugal Ana Isabel SALGADO FONSECA 1987 Lisbon Portuguese 3. 11102/25 Ferreira e Castro da Costa Laranjo v. Portugal Tânia Alexandra FERREIRA E CASTRO DA COSTA LARANJO 1972 Lisbon Portuguese 4. 11110/25 Campos Dâmaso v. Portugal Eduardo José CAMPOS DÂMASO 1962 Lisbon Portuguese