CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 janvier 2023

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 30 January 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23063/18 Óscar Manuel FERREIRA VICTORINO DE QUEIRÓS against Portugal lodged on 8 May 2018 communicated on 13 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns criminal proceedings conducted against the applicant for aggravated defamation, following a criminal complaint lodged by R.B., concerning an article written by the applicant in a national newspaper about an ongoing criminal investigation against R.B. for ill-treatment and child sexual abuse. By a judgment of the Court of Mirandela of 6 September 2016 the applicant was convicted of aggravated defamation and given a suspended sentence of fifteen months imprisonment, and was also ordered to pay damages to R.B. in amount of EUR 10,950. This conviction was confirmed by the Court of Appeal of Guimarães on 6 November 2017. Relying on Article 6 § 1 and Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains of unfair and unbalanced proceedings and that his conviction was in breach of his right to freedom of expression.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, specifically his right to impart information, contrary to Article   10 of the Convention?   In particular,   (a)     Have national authorities held a balancing exercise between the competing interests (see Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], §§48-55, no.   56925/08, 29   March 2016; SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação v.   Portugal , no.   29856/13, §§     54-62, 27 July 2021; and Pinto Coelho v.   Portugal , no.   28439/08, § 33, 28 June 2011)?   (b)     Has the chilling effect on freedom of expression and on the press of the sanction imposed on the applicant been sufficiently taken into consideration by the domestic courts ( SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação , cited above, § 69)?