Communicated on 29 November 2017
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 78873/13
Emídio Arnaldo FREITAS RANGEL
against Portugal
lodged on 5 December 2013
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant died on 13 August 2014. On 9 September 2015 his heirs, Ms A.R. and Ms C.R. (his children), expressed the wish to pursue the application before the Court in his stead.
The application concerns the applicant’s criminal conviction for offence to a legal person (ofensa a pessoa colectiva) on account of statements made by him about the Trade Union Association of Judges (Associação Sindical de Juízes) and the Trade Union of Public Prosecutors (Sindicato dos Magistrados do Ministério Público) during a session organised by the Ethics, Society and Culture Parliamentarian Committee (Comissão Parlamentar de Ética, Sociedade e Cultura) in which he was heard on the topic of freedom of expression in Portugal, in view of his experience as a journalist in Portugal.
On 7 May 2012 the Lisbon Criminal Court convicted the applicant for two crimes of offence to a legal person, sentenced him to pay a fine of 6,000.00 euros (EUR) and ordered him to pay EUR 50,000.00 plus interest in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Trade Union Association of Judges and to pay EUR 50,000.00 plus interest in respect of non-pecuniary damage to the Trade Union of Public Prosecutors. After appeal, the Lisbon Court of Appeal, by a judgment of 22 November 2012 decreased the amount of the non-pecuniary damage to be paid to the Trade Union Association of Judges and to the Trade Union of Public Prosecutors to EUR 10,000.00 to each of them.
Following an appeal of the Trade Union Association of Judges and the Trade Union of Public Prosecutors, by a judgment of 5 June 2013, notified to the applicant on 10 June 2013, the Supreme Court of Justice increased the amounts of the non-pecuniary damage to be paid to EUR 25,000.00 to each of the two trade unions.
The applicant complains that the criminal conviction and punishment amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention.
QUESTION tO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, contrary to Article 10 of the Convention? Was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy