CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 3 February 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 34788/23 Eduardo CINTRA COIMBRA TORRES against Portugal lodged on 11 September 2023 communicated on 16 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a journalist for Correio da Manhã , a well-known Portuguese tabloid newspaper. The case concerns an opinion article written by the applicant and published by the newspaper under title “Hey brother ‑ in ‑ law, how much do you want?” The article was about a famous TV presenter, M.G., and concerned an award of a monetary prize to his brother ‑ in ‑ law during a TV show hosted by M.G. By a judgment of 15 May 2023 the Lisbon Court of Appeal, varying a Lisbon Civil Court’s judgment, ordered the applicant and company C., the owner of the newspaper, to jointly pay M.G. 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage for the statements made in the impugned article. The Lisbon Court of Appeal found that the statements at issue, devoid of any public interest, had breached M.G.’s honour and reputation. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant alleges that the Lisbon Court of Appeal’s judgment ordering him to pay non-pecuniary damages to M.G. amounts to a breach of 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 § 1 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, for instance, Colaço Mestre and SIC – Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A.   v.   Portugal , nos. 11182/03 and 11319/03, §§   22-24, 26   April 2007; Público - Comunicação Social, S.A. and Others v.   Portugal , no.   39324/07, §§   45-46, 7 December 2010; Conceição Letria v.   Portugal , no.   4049/08, §§   34-37, 12 April 2011; and Almeida Arroja v.   Portugal , no.   47238/19, §§   62-72 and 87-90, 19 March 2024)?