CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mars 2024

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } Published on 25 March 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 45820/21 Dora Cristina RIBEIRO CABETE DE NORONHA RODRIGUES against Portugal lodged on 6 September 2021 communicated on 7 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a lawyer. The application concerns criminal proceedings brought against her for aggravated defamation. Following a criminal complaint lodged by R., a judge, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant for aggravated defamation on account of statements in appeal submissions she had presented in her capacity as a lawyer in civil proceedings in which she raised inter alia the lack of impartiality of judge R. who had ruled on the case. On 16 September 2020 the Açores Criminal Court acquitted the applicant. Further to R.’s appeal, on 17 February 2021 the Lisbon Appeal Court set aside that decision. It sentenced the applicant to a fine of 1,800 euros (EUR) for aggravated defamation against R. In addition, it ordered her to pay EUR   2,000 for the non-pecuniary damage caused to R. due to the impugned statements. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that her conviction breached her right to freedom of expression.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression contrary to Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, was the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression “necessary in a democratic society”? More specifically:   1.     Was the characterisation of the applicant’s utterances as statements of fact, rather than value judgments, justified (see Morice v. France [GC], no.   29369/10, §§ 125-126, ECHR 2015)?   2.     Did the national authorities strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, as understood in the context of the her role as a lawyer, and the protection of R’s reputation, on the other hand (see Morice , cited above, §§ 132-139; Rodriguez Ravelo v.   Spain , no. 48074/10, §§ 40-41, 12 January 2016; Pais Pires de Lima v.   Portugal , no. 70465/12, §§ 59-60, 12 February 2019; and Miljević v.   Croatia , no.   68317/13, §§ 48-58, 25   June 2020)?   3.     Has there been sufficient consideration by the domestic courts of the potential chilling effect of the sanction imposed on the applicant on the freedom of expression (see Pais Pires de Lima v. Portugal , no.   70465/12, §   67, 12 February 2019)?