CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 octobre 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 } .s3B53EBCA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } Published on 23 October 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23143/19 Miguel Alexandre GANHÃO against Portugal lodged on 17 April 2019 communicated on 5 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a journalist and director of the economics section of Correio da Manhã , a well-known Portuguese tabloid newspaper. By a judgment of 12 February 2014 of the Lisbon Criminal Court, confirmed by the Lisbon Court of Appeal on 25 October 2018, the   applicant was convicted of aggravated defamation and sentenced to a fine amounting to 2,400   euros (EUR) on account of statements made concerning the conviction for tax offences of R, the executive director of an advertising company, in an opinion column published in the newspaper. He was also ordered to pay the latter EUR 48,000 for pecuniary damage and EUR   25,000 for non-pecuniary damage. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that his conviction had violated his right to freedom of expression.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information, within the meaning of Article   10 §   1 of the Convention? 2.     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 his 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 reputation or rights of others”, having due regard to the criteria set out and implemented by the Court in cases concerning freedom of expression (see Lopes Gomes da Silva v.   Portugal , no. 37698/97, § 30, ECHR 2000-X; Colaço Mestre and SIC – Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v. Portugal , nos.   11182/03 and   11319/03, §§ 22-24, 26 April 2007; and Público - Comunicação Social, S.A. and Others v. Portugal , no. 39324/07, §§ 45-48, 7 December 2010)? c) Have the domestic courts considered the potential chilling effect on the freedom of expression, and on the press, while imposing the sanction on the applicant (see SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação v.   Portugal , no.   29856/13, § 69, 27 July 2021)?