CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 novembre 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 29 November 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 24955/15 Odílio Freitas NÓBREGA against Portugal lodged on 15 May 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns disciplinary proceedings instituted against the applicant, who was a trade unionist ( delegado sindical ), following statements made by him to the media about other disciplinary proceedings lodged against him. The proceedings brought by the applicant before the Funchal Labour Court (domestic proceedings no. 525/07.7TTFUN) to challenge his dismissal were rejected by a judgment of 17 May 2013, confirmed by the Lisbon Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice (the latter on 19   November 2014). Relying on Article 10, the applicant complains of having been unfairly dismissed on account of his statements to the media. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES   1.     Did the applicant’s dismissal, which was confirmed by the domestic courts, constitute an interference with his right to freedom of expression and his trade union rights within the meaning of   Articles 10 § 1 and 11 § 1 of the Convention (see mutatis mutandis Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 28955/06 and 3 others, § 52, ECHR 2011)?   2.     If so, was the interference «prescribed by law» and «necessary in a democratic society» in terms of the second paragraphs of Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic judicial authorities comply with their positive obligations under Article 10 of the Convention read in the light of Article 11 to secure the right of the applicant to freedom of expression in the context of labour relations (see mutatis mutandis, Palomo Sánchez and Others v. Spain, cited above, § 61)?   The applicant is invited to provide a copy of the final decision of 27   October 2006 of the disciplinary proceedings, as referred in point 8 of the list of established facts of the judgement of the Funchal Labour Court of 17   May 2013.