CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 février 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 14 March 2022   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 48979/19 Victor Manuel VEIGA CARDOSO against Portugal lodged on 12 September 2019 communicated on 21 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s criminal conviction for aggravated defamation after he criticised the public prosecutor in charge of proceedings concerning his daughter. He challenged his criminal conviction before the Court of Appeal, without success. Under Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his conviction was in breach of his right to freedom of expression. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 10 of the Convention on account of the applicant’s criminal conviction for aggravated defamation? In particular, was the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression “necessary in a democratic society” (see Lešník v. Slovakia , no.   35640/97, §§ 51-55, ECHR 2003 ‑ IV; Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no.   56925/08, §§ 48-49, 29 March 2016; Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 75, 27   June 2017; and compare with Gouveia Gomes Fernandes and Freitas e Costa v.   Portugal , no. 1529/08, §§ 42-46, 29 March 2011)?