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. 389/19 Paula Cristina RAMOS NUNES DE CARVALHO E SÁ and João   Paulo   MORGADO GONCALVES RIBEIRO against Portugal lodged on 27 December 2018 communicated on 9 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first applicant is a judge and the second applicant is a lawyer. The application concerns a decision of the Supreme Court of 28 June 2018 sentencing them to pay jointly 10,000,00 euros in damages to F.M.J., a judge, on account of statements made by the second applicant in defence pleadings submitted on 3 October 2011 on behalf of the first applicant following her indictment in disciplinary proceedings (no. 269/2011) brought against her by the High Council of the Judiciary (Conselho Superior da Magistratura) (see in this respect Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos.   55391/13, 57728/13 and 74041/13, § 53, 6 November 2018). Relying on Articles 6 § 1, 10 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants allege that their conviction for aggravated defamation breaches their right to freedom of expression, to a fair trial and to an effective remedy. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention?   In particular, did the domestic courts strike a fair balance between the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, as understood in the context of the right of the first applicant to defend herself, and the exercise of the second applicant’s role as her lawyer, on the one hand, and F.M.J.’s interest in the protection of his reputation, on the other (see Morice v.   France [GC], no.   29369/10, §§ 124-27, 132-39, 23 April 2015; Pais   Pires de Lima v.   Portugal , no. 70465/12, §§ 59-60, 12 February 2019; and Miljević v.   Croatia , no. 68317/13, §§ 54-57, 62, 64-66 and 75, 25   June 2020)?