CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 décembre 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 2 January 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 25282/18 Maria Cristina DIAS DOS SANTOS FERREIRA DA COSTA CABRAL against Portugal lodged on 23 May 2018 communicated on 9 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a journalist from a well-known national daily newspaper. By a judgment of 9 March 2017 of the Lisbon District Court confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Lisbon on 14 December 2017, the applicant was sentenced to 100 day-fines for having disclosed, in an article, information covered by investigative secrecy concerning the search and seizure of the computers of two suspects during a criminal investigation for crimes of corruption, illegal access, and abuse of power. Relying on Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that this conviction had violated her right to freedom of expression. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s freedom of expression, in particular her right to impart information, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary as provided for in Article 10 § 2?   In particular: (a)     to what extent are the duties and responsibilities inherent in the applicant’s profession relevant to her claim and the State’s margin of appreciation in this field (see, for instance, Dupuis and Others v.   France , no.   1914/02, § 43, 7 June, and Campos Dâmaso v. Portugal , no.   17107/05, §   35, 24 April 2008)?   (b)     have the national authorities held a balancing exercise between the competing interests at stake, the secrecy of criminal investigations and the right to freedom of expression, ­ having due regard to the criteria set out and implemented by the Court in cases concerning freedom of expression (see, for example, Bédat v. Switzerland [GC] , no. 56925/08, § 55, 29   March 2016; Tourancheau and July v. France , no. 53886/00, § 65, 24   November 2005; Campos Dâmaso , cited above, §§ 35-36; Pinto Coelho v. Portugal , no.   28439/08, § 36, 28 June 2011; and Pinto Coelho v. Portugal (no. 2), no.   48718/11, §§   41-42, 22   March 2016)?