CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 8 octobre 2008

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s775F4DB5 { width:100%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s2E6A932B { width:22.6%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEC4821F { width:28.66%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s10978B3E { width:25.8%; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1579358A { width:22.94%; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sAE71932D { width:22.6%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5FB925BC { width:28.66%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9BBCC822 { width:25.8%; border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s5F042CBE { width:22.94%; border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s9275BB19 { text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)77 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights De Almeida Azevedo against Portugal   (Application No. 43924/02, judgment of 23 January 2007, final on 23 April 2007)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression in relation with criminal libel proceedings (violation of Article 10) (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Portugal’s obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the Government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;     DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2008)77   Information about the measures taken to comply with the judgment in the case of De Almeida Azevedo against Portugal     Introductory case summary   The case concerns an infringement of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression in relation with criminal libel proceedings (violation of Article 10). The applicant, at the time Chairman of the Arouca section of the Social Democrat Party, wrote an opinion article in a local newspaper in which he criticised the Mayor of Arouca concerning the planning of a road to the town. He was subsequently convicted of criminal libel for certain statements he had made in this article. He was sentenced by the Court of Appeal of Porto to 180 day ‑ fines and was ordered to pay 4 000 euros in damages to the Mayor in question.   The European Court found that the statements at issue could hardly be considered excessive, in particular taking into account the context in which they were made. In addition, the Court found that the domestic courts had failed to examine the exceptio veritatis regarding certain factual circumstances described in the article. Thus, the Court considered that the respondent state failed to strike a correct balance between the need to protect the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and the need to protect the rights and the reputation of the person whom the statements were directed against.     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 5   150, 86 EUR - 7   500 EUR 12   650,86 EUR Paid on 10/08/2007 + interest   b) Individual measures   The European Court awarded just satisfaction, which included a reimbursement of the 4000 euros paid in damages. The Portuguese authorities indicated that the conviction had been removed from the applicant’s criminal record (04/12/2007).     II.   General measures   Given the direct effect of the European Convention in Portugal, publication and dissemination of the European Court’s judgment to all competent courts should be sufficient to avoid similar violations. In this context, it should be noted that the European Court’s judgment has been translated and distributed to the Superior Judicial Council, the body which manages the judiciary. It is also available on the Internet site of the Cabinet of Documentation and Comparative Law ( www.gddc.pt ), which comes under the Prosecutor General of the Republic.   Moreover, freedom of expression has been dealt with in university courses, seminars and continuous training courses organised by Legal Studies Centre (Coimbra) in 2007 and 2008.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures taken have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that they will prevent new, similar violations and that Portugal has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.   [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 8 October 2008 at the 1035th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies