CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 août 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s943D4F93 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-indent:21.8pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s88830249 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sEBAC263B { height:28.1pt } .sCCA4659C { width:6.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s52782085 { width:44.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4EBB81E5 { width:14.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s36AE8B8E { width:16.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s37DB148A { width:18.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s31546575 { height:32.65pt } .s14AC249C { width:6.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s18DFB329 { width:44.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB21A6DB4 { width:14.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7C9D7CA0 { width:16.04%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4629D69F { width:18.46%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s22FA5D7A { height:23.75pt } Published on 15 September 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 6815/24 Mafalda Sofia DE CARVALHO GAMEIRO CEPA and José   Maria   DA   COSTA RAMOS E RAMOS against   Portugal communicated on 29 August 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns criminal proceedings conducted against the applicants, journalists working for RTP, a publicly-funded television channel, for aggravated defamation following a criminal complaint lodged by A.L., the representative of a child and family-protection association, after allegations of misconduct were made against him in a broadcast regarding the removal of children from their families and their placement in foster care. By a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Lisbon of 13 July 2023 the first and second applicants were convicted of aggravated defamation and sentenced to 300-day fines, corresponding to 2,100 euros (EUR) and EUR   2,400 respectively, and ordered to pay EUR 5,000 in compensation to A.L. On 31   October 2023 the applicants’ objection against the Court of Appeal of Lisbon’s judgment was rejected. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention the applicants complain that their conviction was in breach of their right to freedom of expression.         QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, in particular their right to impart information, within the meaning of Article   10   §   1 of the Convention? Was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2? 2.     In particular: a)     To what extent are the duties and responsibilities inherent in the applicants’ profession/activity relevant to their claim and the State’s margin of appreciation in this field? b)     Did the national authorities strike a fair balance between the applicants’ right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention and any competing interest, including the “protection of the reputation or rights of others”, having due regard to the criteria set out and implemented by the Court in cases concerning freedom of expression (see Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, §§ 48-55, 29 March 2016; Lopes Gomes da Silva v. Portugal , no. 37698/97, § 30, ECHR 2000 ‑ X; Colaço Mestre and SIC – Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v.   Portugal , nos. 11182/03 and 11319/03, §§ 22-24, 26 April 2007; and Público - Comunicação Social, S.A. and Others v.   Portugal , no.   39324/07, §§   45-48, 7 December 2010)? c)     Has there been sufficient consideration by the domestic courts of the potential chilling effect on the freedom of expression and on the press of the sanction imposed on the applicants (see SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação v.   Portugal , no. 29856/13, § 69, 27   July 2021)?     APPENDIX List of applicants   No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality Place of residence 1. Mafalda Sofia DE   CARVALHO   GAMEIRO   CEPA 1969 Portuguese Montijo 2. José Maria DA COSTA RAMOS E RAMOS 1956 Portuguese Lisbon