CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 novembre 2021

.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 6 December 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 47238/19 José Pedro ALMEIDA ARROJA against Portugal lodged on 2 September 2019 communicated on 17 November 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s criminal conviction for aggravated defamation against the lawyer and politician P.R. and law firm C. in the aftermath of an interview for the private television channel “Porto Canal”. He was fined EUR 7,000 and ordered to pay EUR 5,000 to law firm C. and EUR   10,000 to P.R. for non ‑ pecuniary damage. The applicant relies on Article 10 of the Convention, complaining that his conviction and punishment were in breach of his right to freedom of expression. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES 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, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 §   2 (see, for example, Pinto Pinheiro Marques v. Portugal , no. 26671/09 , §   33, 22 January 2015, and Bédat v. Switzerland ([GC], no.   56925/08, §§   48-52, 29 March 2016)?