CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 30 January 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 50253/18 Tânia Alexandra FERREIRA E CASTRO DA COSTA LARANJO against Portugal lodged on 19 October 2018 communicated on 13 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a journalist with Correio da Manhã , a well-known national daily tabloid. By a judgment of 28 July 2017 of the Lisbon District Court, upheld by the Court of Appeal of Lisbon on 23 April 2018, the applicant was convicted of disobedience ( desobediência ) and sentenced to 100 day-fines of 1,000 euros for having disclosed, in an article published on 13 November 2010, excerpts of a conversation between two important political figures, A.V. and E.E., which she had obtained by consulting the case file of an investigation into crimes of corruption and abuse of power against high-ranking members of the government. Relying on Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the judgment against her breached her right to freedom of expression and to impart information. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to 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 in terms of 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?   (b) did the national authorities strike a fair balance between the applicant’s right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention and any competing interest, including the protection of the right to privacy of those concerned, having due regard to the criteria set out and implemented by the Court in cases concerning freedom of expression (see Bédat v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, §§ 48-52, 29 March 2016; Pinto Coelho v.   Portugal , no. 28439/08, §§ 31-34 and 36, 28 June 2011; and Pinto Coelho v.   Portugal (no. 2) , no. 48718/11, §§ 41-42 and 50, 22 March 2016)?