MARTINS RIBEIRO v. PORTUGAL and 1 other application

Published on 6 October 2025

FOURTH SECTION

Applications nos. 24968/24 and 25450/24
Octávio Manuel MARTINS RIBEIRO against Portugal
and Tânia Alexandra FERREIRA E CASTRO DA COSTA LARANJO against Portugal
lodged on 29 August 2024 and 27 August 2024 respectively
communicated on 16 September 2025

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The first applicant is the director of a media company which owns the TV channel Correio da Manhã T.V. (“CMTV”) where the second applicant works as a journalist.

By a judgment of 1 August 2023 of the Lisbon District Court, upheld by the Lisbon Court of Appeal on 3 May 2024, the applicants were ordered to pay 10 000 euros in solidarity with the media company to F.C. as compensation for non-pecuniary damage sustained for having broadcast F.C’s testimony as a witness in a high-profile criminal investigation on CMTV on 22 April 2018 without prior authorisation from her or from the competent judge.

Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the domestic decisions given against them had breached their right to freedom of expression.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1.  Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, in particular their right to impart information, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the sentence given against them in respect of the report broadcast on CMTV on 22 April 2018? Was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2?

2.  In particular:

(a)  To what extent are the duties and responsibilities inherent in the applicants’ profession/activity relevant to their claim and the State’s margin of appreciation in this field?

(b)  Did the national authorities strike a fair balance between the applicants’ right to freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention and the other competing interests, including the protection of the right to privacy of F.C., the right to presumption of innocence as well as the proper administration of justice, having due regard to the criteria set out and implemented by the Court in cases concerning freedom of expression (see Bédat v. Switzerland [GC], no. 56925/08, §§ 48-54, 29 March 2016; Campos Dâmaso v. Portugal, no. 17107/05, §§ 29-32, 24 April 2008; Pinto Coelho v. Portugal, no. 28439/08, §§ 31-34 and 36, 28 June 2011; and Pinto Coelho v. Portugal (no. 2), no. 48718/11, §§ 36‑42 and 50, 22 March 2016)?

(c)  Did the amount the applicants were ordered to pay in damages have an undesirable chilling effect on freedom of expression? (see SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação v. Portugal, no. 29856/13, § 69, 27 July 2021)?

APPENDIX

List of applications: