CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 May 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 2746/21 SIC - SOCIEDADE INDEPENDENTE DE COMUNICAÇÃO against Portugal lodged on 16 December 2020 communicated on 4 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant company is the owner of several Portuguese television channels, including SIC Radical . The application concerns civil proceedings brought against the applicant company by A and B, whose image and words had been recorded during a stand-up comedy show in a theatre and came to be broadcast by SIC Radical , after editing, for the promotion of a stand-up comedy television programme, without their consent. On 16 June 2020 the applicant company was sentenced by the Supreme Court to pay 40,000 euros in damages to A and B. On 15 September 2020 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal lodged by the applicant company with the Constitutional Court. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the judgment against it has no legal basis and amounts to a breach of its right to freedom of expression. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was the interference prescribed by law, in pursuit of legitimate aims and necessary in a democratic society? In particular, taking into account the content and context of the images published, did the national authorities make a due assessment of all interests at stake (see Von Hannover v.   Germany (no. 2) [GC], nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, §§ 95-113, 7   February 2012; and Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, §§   78-95, 7   February 2012)?   3.     In view of the amount that the applicant company has been ordered to pay, was the potential chilling effect on the exercise of the freedom of expression sufficiently taken into consideration by the domestic courts (see Público – Comunicação Social, S.A. and others v. Portugal , no.   39324/07, §   55, 7 December 2010; and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação v. Portugal , no. 29856/13, § 69, 27 July 2021)?