Published on 18 September 2023
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 17655/19
Ana Cristina CHINITA RODRIGUES
against Portugal
lodged on 6 March 2019
communicated on 29 August 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is a judge at a court of first instance. On 6 June 2015 she delivered an acquittal decision. On 9 March 2016 the Lisbon Court of Appeal, having found inconsistencies in the decision, annulled it and ordered the lower court to repeat the trial. On 13 June 2016 the applicant reopened the hearing, and, without taking new evidence, delivered a new acquittal decision. In some passages of the decision, the applicant expressed her disagreement with the Appeal Court’s order.
Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the applicant for, inter alia, breach of her duty of proper conduct (dever de correção). On 11 July 2017 the High Council of the Judiciary (Conselho Superior da Magistratura) issued a warning against the applicant. On 9 October 2018 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant. A further complaint lodged by the applicant against this decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 22 January 2019.
Under Article 10 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the disciplinary sanction imposed on her violated her right to freedom of expression. She argues that the impugned statements did not offend anyone’s right to honour or dignity.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the imposition of the disciplinary sanction on the applicant for breach of her duty of proper conduct due to the remarks contained in the decision of 13 June 2016 constitute an interference with her right to freedom of expression protected by Article 10 of the Convention (see Mnatsakanyan v. Armenia, no. 2463/12, §§ 71-76, 6 December 2022)?
2. If so, was the interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of expression “necessary in a democratic society” (see Baka v. Hungary [GC], no. 20261/12, §§ 162-167, 23 June 2016; Wille v. Liechtenstein [GC], no. 28396/95, §§ 41-43, ECHR 1999-VII; Kudeshkina v. Russia, no. 29492/05, § 86, 26 February 2009; and, mutatis mutandis, Morice v. France [GC], §127, no. 29369/10, ECHR 2015)?