CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 mars 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 } .sD6845F38 { font-family:Arial; color:#0072bc } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s943D4F93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } Published on 3 April 2023   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 33203/20 and 45884/22 Tânia Alexandra FERREIRA E CASTRO DA COSTA LARANJO against   Portugal lodged on 27 July 2020 and 21 September 2022 respectively communicated on 17 March 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE Application no. 33203/20   The applicant is a journalist for the television news channel CMTV. On 28 and 29 November 2015 she broadcast images and sound of the non-judicial hearing of the former Minister for Internal Affairs, M.M., who was at the time being investigated, in a highly mediatised case, for corruption and abuse of power in the granting of special investment and business visas (golden visas) while he was in the Government. By a judgment of the District Court of Lisbon of 3 December 2019, upheld by the Lisbon Court of Appeal on 30 January 2020, the applicant was convicted for disobedience ( desobediência ) for failing to request the prior authorisation of the judicial authority or the person concerned and sentenced to 8 day-fines amounting to 880 euros.   Application no. 45884/22   With respect to the same facts, M.M. instituted liability proceedings against the applicant and C., the company owning the news network. On 4   December 2019 the District Court of Lisbon dismissed the claim regarding the applicant and ordered company C. to pay 55,000 euros to M.M. as compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the prejudice caused by the disclosure of the information at issue. On 8 January 2021 the Lisbon Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance decision and ordered the applicant jointly with company C. to pay 35,000   euros to M.M. as compensation in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained. This decision was confirmed by a final decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 25 May 2022.   Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the decisions of the domestic courts, sanctioning her with a fine for disobedience and ordering her to pay jointly 35,000 euros to M.M. for having disclosed the information in question, had breached her right to freedom of expression.     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 and to the presumption of innocence of M.M. as well as the proper administration of justice, 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; Campos Dâmaso v. Portugal , no.   17107/05, §§ 29-32, 24   April 2008; 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)? c) In view of the amount the applicant was ordered to pay to M.M. in respect of non-pecuniary damage, was the chilling effect on the exercise of the freedom of expression sufficiently taken into consideration by the domestic courts ( SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação v.   Portugal , no. 29856/13, § 69, 27 July 2021)?