CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 mars 2025

.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 31 March 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 13933/23 Alfredo Júlio MATOS DOS SANTOS GIL against Portugal lodged on 22 March 2023 communicated on 10 March 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a retired person. On 26 March 2018 the applicant filed a criminal complaint against a neighbour alleging that she had falsified a document in the context of a condominium general meeting. On 14 November 2018 T.R., the public prosecutor allocated to the criminal case, concluded there was insufficient evidence and ordered discontinuation of the criminal investigation. In submissions presented on 20 December 2018, the applicant stated, inter alia , that T.R. had purposefully lied and had been deceitful in the context of the criminal investigation. On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with aggravated defamation against T.R. By a judgment of the Cascais Criminal Court of 6   May 2022, upheld by the Lisbon Court of Appeal on 24 November 2022, the applicant was convicted for aggravated defamation in accordance with Articles   180(1), 182 and 184 of the Criminal Code and fined with 1,040   euros (EUR). The applicant was also ordered to pay 500 EUR in judicial costs. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his conviction for aggravated defamation breached his right to freedom of expression. He also complains, relying on Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention, that the trial judge of the Cascais Criminal Court ordered him to pay judicial costs to intimidate him. 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,   (a) Was the characterisation by the domestic courts of the applicant’s statements as statements of fact in compliance with the Court’s case-law (see Lešník   v. Slovakia , no. 35640/97, §§ 56-57, 11 March 2023, and, mutatis mutandis , Morice v. France [GC], no. 29369/10, § 156, 23 April 2015; Bono v. France , no.   29024/11, § 53, 15 December 2015; and Pais Pires de Lima v.   Portugal , no.   70465/12, § 65, 12 February 2019), and were those statements capable of undermining or threatening the functioning of the justice system and the rights and reputation of a civil servant (see Lešník , cited above, §§ 48, 53-55, and, mutatis mutandis , Bono , cited above, § 54)   ?   (b) Were the fine and judicial costs imposed on the applicant proportionate (see Lešník , §§ 63-64, and, mutatis mutandis, Morice , §§ 175-76, Bono , §   55, and Pais Pires de Lima , § 66, all cited above)?