CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 31 octobre 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sDB9EB187 { font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s87C74EA6 { font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#000000 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s7F74B77E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; font-size:12pt } .sF8AEFD1F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4894483B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s14C34524 { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFB5BB313 { width:29.88pt; display:inline-block } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sD0B5C7A1 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s347D1DBA { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .sF66F4DA4 { width:23.21pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23ADBB69 { font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)131 [1] Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights Lopes Gomes da Silva against Portugal   (Application No. 37698/97, judgment of 28/09/2000, final on 28/12/2000)     The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);   Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court once it had become final;   Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concern a disproportionate interference with the freedom of expression of the applicant, on account of his conviction for defamation, following the publication of an editorial criticising a candidate for a municipal election (see details in Appendix);   Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with Portugal's obligation under Article   46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;   Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee's Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;   Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),   Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate: - of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and   - of general measures, preventing similar violations;   DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 803 rd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies (22/07/2002), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and   DECIDES to close the examination of this case.   Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)131   Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of Lopes Gomes da Silva against Portugal     Introductory case summary   The violation found in this case resulted from the conviction of the applicant, the director of a large-circulation daily newspaper, for defamation in 1995 (judgment final in 1997) following the publication in 1993 of an article expressing criticism towards a politician.   The Court considered that, regardless of the minimal character of the sanction (a fine), the conviction itself was disproportionate, having regard to the circumstances of the case (violation of Article 10).     I.   Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures   a) Details of just satisfaction   Pecuniary damage Non-pecuniary damage Costs and expenses Total 480   000 PTE - 1   758   297 PTE 2 238   297 PTE Paid within the time-limit set on 22/03/2001   b) Individual measures   The fine paid by applicant as a consequence of the conviction has been reimbursed in the framework of the just satisfaction awarded by the Court and his judicial file does not contain any mention of the conviction at issue in this case. Accordingly, all the consequences, for the applicant, of the violation found in this case have been remedied.   II.   General measures   In order to facilitate the adaptation of the competent courts' interpretation of the limits of permissible criticism when assessing defamation cases, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has been rapidly translated into Portuguese and published in November 2000 in the legal journal Sub Judice and in Revista Portuguesa de Ciência Criminal . It has furthermore been the subject of pedagogical discussions at Universities and at the Centre for Judicial Studies in Portugal.   The government is of the opinion that, in view of the supra-legal status of the Convention, as interpreted by the European Court, in Portuguese law (Constitutional Court judgments Nos. 345/99 of 15   June 1999 and 533/99 of 12 October 1999), the Portuguese courts will interpret the relevant provisions in accordance with the Convention so as to avoid new violations similar to that found in the Lopes Gomes da Silva case.     III.   Conclusions of the respondent state   The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent new, similar violations and that Portugal has thus complied with its obligations under Article   46, paragraph 1 of the Convention. [1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 31 October 2007 at the 1007th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies