CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 juin 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF71F55 { width:100%; border-collapse:collapse } .sDDF0514C { width:4.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s87950DDA { width:55.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85D7F782 { width:16.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7BE89162 { width:12.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDA59CB3E { width:11.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s35B3B0A7 { height:17.65pt } .s8E97DE01 { width:4.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s888596FE { width:55.16%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFC545250 { width:16.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s68739EDA { width:12.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B7CF416 { width:11.14%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB91B8FD0 { width:4.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } Published on 7 July 2025   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23084/18 FUTEBOL CLUBE DO PORTO, FUTEBOL SAD and Others against Portugal lodged on 7 May 2018 communicated on 17 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns the imposition of an interim injunction on the applicants, barring them from disclosing certain leaked emails involving corruption allegations of a rival football club. The Futebol Clube do Porto (“F.C. Porto”) and the Sport Lisboa e Benfica (“SLB”) are two major football clubs in Portugal. The applicants are F.C. Porto (first applicant company), Futebol Clube do Porto – Futebol SAD (second applicant company), FCP Media, S.A. (third applicant company), Avenida dos Aliados – Sociedade de Comunicação, S.A. (fourth applicant company), and Francisco Carvalho Marques (fifth applicant). All the applicant companies are, either directly or indirectly, associated with the first applicant company through corporate ownership relationships. The fourth applicant company owns Porto Canal , a generalist TV channel. The fifth applicant was the communications’ director of the first applicant company at the material time. Between April and July 2017, an anonymous source sent multiple batches of emails - allegedly originating from SLB - to the fifth applicant. These   emails appeared to contain evidence of potential criminal activity, including the corruption of referees. Starting with April 2017, the fifth applicant began to reveal some of those emails in a football programme broadcast via Porto Canal . On 13 October 2017 the Porto District Court dismissed an application lodged by SLB requesting an injunction to restrain further disclosure of the emails at issue. On 21 February 2018, following an appeal, the Porto Court of Appeal issued an interim injunction prohibiting the applicants from accessing, reading, and broadcasting the information contained in the leaked emails and fixed the daily fine of 200,000 euros ("EUR”) in the event of non ‑ compliance. This injunction was ultimately confirmed by the Supreme Court in a judgement rendered in the main proceedings on 9 May 2024. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the interim injunction issued by the Porto Court of Appeal against them violated their right to freedom of expression, namely their freedom to impart information and ideas and the freedom of the press. Relying on Article 18 of the Convention, they claim that the impugned injunction has been applied in the instant case to prevent the disclosure of unlawful and criminal conduct and not to protect the reputation and the rights and others as foreseen under Article 10 § 2 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, did the Porto Court of Appeal apply the principles laid down in the Court’s established case-law and did it conduct an adequate balancing exercise taking into account all the competing interests at stake (see markt intern Verlag GmbH and Klaus Beermann v.   Germany , 20 November 1989, §§ 33-35, Series A no.   165; Observer and Guardian v. the United Kingdom , 26 November 1991, §   60, Series A no. 216; and Cumhuriyet Vakfı and Others v. Turkey , no.   28255/07, §§   56-74, 8 October 2013)?   The applicants are invited to clarify what is the difference between the first applicant company and the second applicant company under domestic law, as well as the duration of the alleged interference.   APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth/registration Nationality Place of residence 1. FUTEBOL CLUBE DO PORTO, FUTEBOL SAD 1978 Portuguese Porto 2. AVENIDA DOS ALIADOS - SOCIEDADE DE COMUNICAÇÃO S.A. 2005 Portuguese Porto 3. Francisco José CARVALHO MARQUES 1966 Portuguese Porto 4. FCP MEDIA, S.A. 2011 Portuguese Porto 5. FUTEBOL CLUBE DO PORTO FUTEBOL SAD 1997 Portuguese Porto