CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 juillet 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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } Published on 29 July 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 28183/22 Fernando GASPAR GUIMARÃES against Portugal lodged on 30 May 2022 communicated on 9 July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns liability proceedings brought by R., a judge, against the applicant, a lawyer. They followed criminal and disciplinary complaints that the applicant unsuccessfully submitted against R. on account of the latter’s refusal to exempt him from the obligation to pay costs in enforcement proceedings in which he had been acting as a lawyer intervening in person ( advogado em causa própria ). On 11 October 2016 R. filed a non-contractual civil liability action against the applicant with the Lisbon Civil Court claiming 40,000 euros (EUR) in damages for the alleged harm to his honour and reputation caused by the above-mentioned criminal and disciplinary complaints. On 5 April 2020 the Lisbon Civil Court ordered the applicant to pay EUR   5,000 to R. in damages, together with statutory interests calculated from the date of delivery of the judgment, holding that the accusations in question had gone beyond the limits of acceptable criticism and had constituted a serious attack on the honour and reputation of the judge. On 11   March 2022 the Lisbon Court of Appeal upheld the decision. The applicant complains under Article 10 of the Convention that the courts’ decisions breached his 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:   (a)     Did the national authorities strike a fair balance between, on the one hand, the applicant’s right to freedom of expression as a lawyer, and the protection of R’s reputation as a judge, on the other hand (see, mutatis mutandis , Lešník v. Slovakia , no.   35640/97, §§   53-56, ECHR 2003-IV; Łopuch v.   Poland , no. 43587/09, §§ 59 and 61, 24   July 2012; and Zdravko Stanev v.   Bulgaria (no. 2) , no. 18312/08, §§   38 and 39, 12   July 2016)?   (b)     Was the amount of damages ordered against the applicant proportionate to the aims pursued (see, mutatis mutandis, Morice v.   France [GC], no.   29369/10, §§ 175-76, 23 April 2015; Bezymyannyy v.   Russia , no.   10941/03, §   43, 8 April 2010; and Zdravko Stanev (no. 2) , cited above, §   44)?