CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 janvier 2023

.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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s2D726B78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s2DBA063A { width:103.84%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sF05431EA { width:4.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sDE11A622 { width:12.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1FB44D16 { width:30.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s5735D52A { width:10.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3232FF1E { width:27.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4C6A39CE { width:15.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sD31D243 { width:4.48%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3BF7D795 { width:12.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD1F89DFF { width:30.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3470C6E4 { width:10.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7EEC251C { width:27.24%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s82252708 { width:15.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 23 January 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 29703/19 Francisco José DE CARVALHO MARQUES against Portugal and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 5 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicants are the Porto Football Club (the “FCP”) (applications nos.   37235/19, 34185/19 and 47902/20), its director of communication and information (applications nos. 29703/19, 29978/19 and 34185/19) and its President (application no. 3708/22). The applications concern disciplinary proceedings brought against the applicants by the Disciplinary Board of the Portuguese Football Federation upon which they were sanctioned with fines between 459 and 15,300   euros and a suspension from office (application no. 29703/19) following statements they made about referees’ performance and the refereeing system as a whole. These statements were made, published or broadcast in the media, namely on TV and radio, in sports newspapers and in the electronic newspaper that the FCP makes available on its official site with free subscription. Relying on Article 10 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention, the applicants complain of a breach of their right to freedom of expression, arguing that they had confined themselves to expressing or imparting a view based on facts, on a matter of wide public interest and in a context of intense controversy, and that the measures imposed on them were not necessary in a democratic society. In   addition, in applications nos. 37235/19, 34185/19 and 47902/20 the applicants argue a breach of their right to disseminate ideas to FCP members, supporters and sympathisers in the electronic newspaper available on the FCP website. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was the interference prescribed by law, in pursuit of legitimate aims and necessary in a democratic society? In particular:   (a)     Did the applicants’ remarks concern matters of public interest? (b)     Should the individuals and bodies mentioned in those remarks be considered “public figures”? (c)     Taking into account the content and context of the statements at issue, did the national authorities make a due assessment of all interests at stake (see, mutatis mutandis , Sedat Dogan v. Turkey , no.   48909/14, §§   41-42, 18   May 2021 and Naki and Amed Sportif Faaliyetler Kulübü Derneği v.   Turkey , no. 48924/16, §§ 36-37, 18   May 2021)? (d)     In view of the sanctions imposed on the applicants as well as the procedural costs incurred by them, was the potential chilling effect on the exercise of the freedom of expression sufficiently taken into consideration by the domestic courts (see, mutatis mutandis , SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação v. Portugal , no. 29856/13, §   69, 27 July 2021)?   List of applications No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Date of Birth/of creation Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 29703/19 De Carvalho Marques v. Portugal 24/05/2019 Francisco José DE CARVALHO MARQUES 13/05/1966 Porto Portuguese Nuno BRANDÃO 2. 29978/19 De Carvalho Marques v. Portugal 24/05/2019 Francisco José DE CARVALHO MARQUES 13/05/1966 Porto Portuguese Nuno BRANDÃO 3. 34185/19 Futebol Clube do Porto, Futebol SAD and De Carvalho Marques v. Portugal 11/06/2019 FUTEBOL CLUBE DO PORTO, FUTEBOL SAD 15/04/1978 Porto Portuguese Francisco José DE CARVALHO MARQUES 13/05/1966 Porto Portuguese Nuno BRANDÃO 4. 37235/19 Futebol Clube do Porto, Futebol SAD v. Portugal 24/05/2019 FUTEBOL CLUBE DO PORTO FUTEBOL SAD 23/09/1997 Porto Portuguese Nuno BRANDÃO 5. 47902/20 Futebol Clube do Porto Futebol SAD v. Portugal 07/10/2020 FUTEBOL CLUBE DO PORTO FUTEBOL SAD 23/09/1997 Porto Portuguese Nuno BRANDÃO 6. 3708/22 Lima Pinto da Costa v. Portugal 10/01/2022 Jorge Nuno LIMA PINTO DA COSTA 28/12/1937 Porto Portuguese Nuno BRANDÃO