CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 septembre 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 September 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 9601/23 João Júlio CERQUEIRA against Portugal lodged on 23 February 2023 communicated on 13 September 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a medical practitioner. The application concerns the applicant’s criminal conviction for having written, on his website, blog and Facebook profile, defamatory statements about P.C., a Chinese medical practitioner and acupuncture physician, namely that he was a “charlatan”, “snake fat salesman”, “skin seamstress”, “dishonest”, “ignorant”, “basic”, “liar”, “stupid”, and also referring to him as “chop choy” (after the Chinese dish). On 14 January 2021 the Lisbon District Court fined the applicant 3,000   euros (EUR) and ordered him to pay EUR 15,000 to P.C. for non ‑ pecuniary damage. On 25 October 2022 the Appeal Court of Lisbon upheld the judgment. The domestic courts found that the applicant had overstepped the limits of permissible criticism because the impugned statements about P.C. had been personal, offensive, humiliating and xenophobic. The applicant relies on Article 10 of the Convention, complaining that his conviction and the award of damages on account of his criticism of P.C. were in breach of 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, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention? If so:   2.     Was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 § 2? In particular, were the reasons adduced by the domestic courts “relevant and sufficient” to justify the alleged interference? (see Perinçek v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 27510/08, §§ 204-08, ECHR 2015;   Sanchez v.   France [GC], no. 45581/15, §§ 158-62, 15 May 2023; Féret v.   Belgium , no.   15615/07, §§ 64 and 78, 16 July 2009;   Savva Terentyev v.   Russia , no.   10692/09, §§ 66 and 68, 28 August 2018; and Almeida Arroja v.   Portugal , no.   47238/19, §§ 87-90, 19 March 2024)?