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 } Published on 25 March 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 40764/20 José Manuel da Mata VIEIRA COELHO against Portugal lodged on 1 September 2020 communicated on 7 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE At the material time, the applicant was a member of the Regional Parliament of Madeira. The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against him for aggravated defamation and disobedience. On 4 March 2020, the Lisbon Appeal Court convicted the applicant of four counts of aggravated defamation. The applicant had publicly accused A.C. (Deputy Secretary General of a regional political party), M.G. (a Public Prosecutor), M.R.T.G. (a businessman), and M.J.M (an Enforcement Solicitor) of criminal offenses such as misappropriation of funds, corruption, falsification, fraud, and the homicide of a French politician. Additionally, the court convicted the applicant for two crimes: the first for refusing to reveal to the Prosecutor’s Office the identity of the author of an article written in a newspaper where he was the Director and the second, following a court order, for refusing to remove contents of websites he administrated. The Lisbon Appeal Court sentenced the applicant to three years and six months imprisonment, the execution of which was suspended for the same period on condition that he paid the victims compensation amounting to 28,000   euros in total for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by them. Relying on Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) and (c) the applicant complains that, following the withdrawal of his lawyer, the defence lawyer appointed to him at the second trial session did not have adequate time to study the case-file and discuss the case with him before the start of the trial. Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 10 of the Convention, the applicant states that his conviction was unfair and constituted a disproportionate interference with his right to freedom of expression as a member of the Regional Parliament of Madeira. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression? In particular:   (a)     Have the domestic courts carried out an appropriate balancing of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression against the other interests at stake, in accordance with the principles enshrined in the Court’s case-law concerning Article 10 of the Convention (see Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], §§   48-55, no. 56925/08, 29 March 2016, and   Barata Monteiro da Costa Nogueira and Patrício Pereira v. Portugal , no.   4035/08, §§   36-40, 11   January 2011 )?   (b)     Was the criminal sanction imposed on the applicant proportionate in its nature and severity to the aims pursued (see Cumpǎnǎ and Mazǎre v.   Romani a [GC], no. 33348/96, § 116, ECHR 2004-XI, and Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan , no. 35877/04, §§ 50-51, 18 December 2008)? Has   the chilling effect on freedom of expression and the political freedom to impart information and ideas sufficiently been considered by national courts (see Rashkin v. Russia , no. 69575/10, §§ 19-20, 7 July 2020)?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair trial in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s lawyer afforded adequate time to prepare her client’s defence, as required by Article 6 §   3 (b) of the Convention (see Beuze v. Belgium [GC], no. 71409/10, §§   150 and 171, 9   November 2018; Nevzlin v. Russia , no. 26679/08, § 139, 18 January 2022; and Elif Nazan Şeker v.   Turkey , no. 41954/10, §§ 55-58, 8 March 2022)?