CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 janvier 2025

.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 27 January 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 36466/23 José Pedro CASTELO BRANCO against Portugal lodged on 26 September 2023 communicated on 12 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for aggravated defamation against F.M., a lawyer. By a judgment of 23 June 2022 of the Lisbon Criminal Court, the applicant was convicted with a fine of 1,000 euros (EUR) for aggravated defamation and ordered to pay EUR 750 in damages to F.M. for calling him a professional bandit ( um bandido encartado) during a judicial hearing in which he was intervening as a witness. By a judgment of 25 May 2023, served on the applicant the following day, the Appeal Court of Lisbon upheld the judgment. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that his conviction breached his right to freedom of expression. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, within the meaning of Article 10 of the Convention? If so:   2.     Was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article   10 § 2? In particular, were the reasons adduced by the domestic courts “relevant and sufficient” to justify the alleged interference (see   Bédat v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, §§ 48-54, 29 March 2016; Gouveia Gomes Fernandes and Freitas e Costa v. Portugal, no.   1529/08, §§   42 ‑ 46, 29   March 2011; and Almeida Arroja v.   Portugal , no.   47238/19, §§   62 ‑ 72, 19   March 2024)?