FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25972/20
RÁDIO E TELEVISÃO DE PORTUGAL, S.A. and Others
against Portugal
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 May 2025 as a Committee composed of:
Tim Eicke, President,
Ana Maria Guerra Martins,
András Jakab, judges,
and Crina Kaufman, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 25972/20) against the Portuguese Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 23 June 2020 by the five applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), who were represented by Ms J. Arnaud, a lawyer practising in Lisbon;
the decision to give notice of the application to the Portuguese Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agents, Mr. R. Bragança de Matos and Mr M. Aires Magriço, Public Prosecutors;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The first applicant is a publicly funded television channel and the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants are journalists who were working for the first applicant at the material time. The case concerns a judgment of the Lisbon Court of Appeal ordering the applicants to pay compensation to an otolaryngologist for damaging his honour and reputation owing to allegations made against him in an investigative journalism report produced by the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants and broadcast by the first applicant. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that the court’s decision had been disproportionate and had infringed their right to freedom of expression.
2. On 13 February 2015, in the television programme “Sexta às Nove” (“Friday at Nine”), the first applicant broadcast an investigative journalism report entitled “Negócio com crianças surdas” (“Profiting from deaf children”) concerning criminal, disciplinary and administrative proceedings initiated against C.R. and J.Q., two otolaryngologists working at Coimbra University Hospital (hereinafter “the HUC”), which had been opened following an anonymous letter sent to various authorities. In the report, the applicants alleged that doctors at the HUC were deliberately and wrongly advising parents of children who had undergone cochlear implant surgery there to seek the placement of a second cochlear implant at a private clinic where they also worked, as the procedure was not available through the national health system, seeking to profit from them. The report included the content of the anonymous letter and interviews with several people. Among the people interviewed were the parents of patients that had undergone cochlear implant surgery, who shared their indignation of the allegations being made against the otolaryngologists; the president of an organisation that supports cochlear implants, who stated that that the second cochlear implant was not available in the public health system; and C.R., who clarified the situation and denied the allegations made against him. As regards J.Q., the report stated that he had refused to be interviewed. The programme was watched by an average of 800,000 people.
3. On 18 February 2015 J.Q. sent a letter to the first applicant with a view to exercising his right of reply. The first applicant only followed up his request on 6 March 2015, further to an injunction from the Portuguese Regulatory Authority for the Media (“the ERC”) to do so. Prior to broadcasting J.Q.’s message, the second applicant made introductory remarks, reasserting the content of the report as well-founded. On 21 April 2015 the ERC ordered the first applicant to rebroadcast J.Q.’s message without any introductory remarks. On 29 May 2015 it did so, albeit with the second applicant repeating the information stated in the original broadcast and presenting new evidence to support the factual nature of the report. As a result of the failure to comply with its orders, the ERC initiated administrative-offence proceedings (processo de contra-ordenação) against the first applicant.
4. Following civil liability proceedings instituted by J.Q. against the applicants, in which he claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) for the damage caused by the allegations made against him in the report and during the exercise of his right of reply (see paragraphs 2-3 above), the Lisbon District Court, by a judgment of 2 May 2018, ordered the applicants to pay him EUR 50,000 jointly in compensation for damage to his honour and reputation, pursuant to Article 484 of the Civil Code. In its reasoning, the Lisbon District Court found that the report had gone beyond the evidence gathered by the applicant journalists in the context of the investigations pending against him (see paragraph 2 above), reaching unsubstantiated conclusions. The Lisbon District Court noted, namely, that the parents of patients interviewed were expressing their indignation regarding the allegations made against the otolaryngologists and had no direct knowledge of the situation in question. Furthermore, the allegations were repeated in the exercise of J.Q.’s right of reply. In view of these circumstances, referring to the Court’s case-law and after balancing the applicants’ right to freedom of expression and to practise investigative journalism against J.Q.’s right to the protection of his honour and reputation, the court found that the latter should prevail.
5. On 13 January 2020 the Lisbon Court of Appeal upheld the District Court’s judgment. It noted that it was stated in the report that the national health system did not provide second cochlear implant surgery for deaf children and that, for this reason, J.Q. and C.R. could not have diverted patients to their private practice, as there had been no alternative at the relevant time. The Lisbon Court of Appeal took the view that the applicants had acted with such serious negligence by not adequately reflecting the evidence they had gathered and alleging that patients were being diverted when they stated that bilateral cochlear implant was not available in the public health system at the relevant time, that there was no need to balance competing rights, as no right to freedom of expression was at stake in the circumstances. It also considered that the way in which J.Q.’s right of reply had been exercised was an aggravating factor.
6. Relying on Article 10 of the Convention, the applicants alleged that the domestic courts’ judgments had been excessive and disproportionate and had infringed their right to freedom of expression. They submitted that the report had concerned relevant matters of public interest, namely the national health system, which was publicly funded.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
7. It should be noted at the outset that both parties were in agreement regarding the first applicant’s non-governmental organisation nature within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. The Court sees no reason to find otherwise as, although the first applicant is publicly funded (see paragraph 1 above), it does not participate in the exercise of governmental powers or run a public service under government control (compare Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, § 26, ECHR 2003-X (extracts)).
8. The relevant general principles of the Court’s case-law have been summarised in Bédat v. Switzerland ([GC], no. 56925/08, §§ 48-54, 29 March 2016). For the purposes of the present case, the Court reiterates that while the media fulfil an essential function in a democratic society by disseminating information and ideas on all matters of public interest (see Pentikäinen v. Finland [GC], no. 11882/10, § 88, ECHR 2015), they should act in good faith and on an accurate factual basis and provide “reliable and precise” information in accordance with the ethics of journalism (see Axel Springer AG v. Germany [GC], no. 39954/08, § 93, 7 February 2012).
9. It was not disputed by the parties that the domestic courts’ judgments constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to freedom of expression, that such interference was “prescribed by law” – specifically Article 484 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 4 above) – and that it pursued the legitimate aim of protecting J.Q.’s honour and reputation. The Court sees no reason to hold otherwise (see Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], no. 17224/11, § 76, 27 June 2017). It thus remains to be ascertained whether the domestic authorities struck a fair balance between the above‑mentioned competing rights of the applicants and J.Q. in view of the relevant criteria (see Axel Springer AG, cited above, §§ 90-95, and Couderc and Hachette Filipacchi Associés v. France [GC], no. 40454/07, § 93, ECHR 2015 (extracts)).
10. As regards the contribution to a debate of public interest, the Court notes that the report (see paragraph 2 above) concerned a matter of public interest, as it related to ongoing proceedings concerning two otolaryngologists working at a public hospital (compare Campos Dâmaso v. Portugal, no. 17107/05, § 33, 24 April 2008, and SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação v. Portugal, no. 29856/13, § 63, 27 July 2021).
11. The national authorities found that the applicants had relied excessively on the anonymous letter as a source for their report even though they had known that bilateral cochlear implants were not available to children through the public health system (see paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 above). Therefore, the report’s allegations that J.Q. and C.R. were diverting patients to their private practice were inaccurate, given that there were no alternatives at the relevant time (see Azadliq and Zayidov v. Azerbaijan, no. 20755/08, § 36, 30 June 2022). Having established that the applicants’ statements lacked any factual basis, the Court finds that the domestic courts gave relevant and sufficient reasons in striking a fair balance between the competing interests at issue in the present case.
12. Turning to the nature and severity of the sanction imposed on the applicants, it should be noted that they were ordered to pay EUR 50,000 jointly to J.Q. When determining the amount of compensation awarded to him, the national authorities found that the fact that the allegations had been repeated during the exercise of his right of reply – a journalistic duty and legal obligation – was an aggravating factor (see paragraph 5 above and contrast SIC - Sociedade Independente de Comunicação, § 68, cited above).
13. Given that the compensation awarded was intended to repair the damage to J.Q.’s honour and reputation resulting from the broadcast of a television programme with an estimated audience of over 800,000 people, the sanction does not appear to have been disproportionate (contrast Pais Pires de Lima v. Portugal, no. 70465/12, § 66, 12 February 2019).
14. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that the domestic courts struck a fair balance, within their margin of appreciation, between the applicant’s right to freedom of expression and to impart information under Article 10 of the Convention, and J.Q.’s right to the protection of his honour and reputation, which falls, as part of the right to respect for private life, under Article 8 of the Convention, taking into account the criteria set out in the Court’s case-law.
15. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 19 June 2025.
Crina Kaufman Tim Eicke
Acting Deputy Registrar President
Appendix
List of applicants:
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth/
registration
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
RÁDIO E TELEVISÃO DE PORTUGAL, S.A.
2007
Portuguese
Lisbon
2.
Sandra Maria FELGUEIRAS OLIVEIRA
1977
Portuguese
Lisbon
3.
José Manuel LAIRES SEQUEIRA PORTUGAL
1963
Portuguese
Coimbra
4.
Paulo Jorge LIMA DENTINHO
1959
Portuguese
Lisbon
5.
Soraia MANUEL DE SOUSA RAMOS
1985
Portuguese
Lisbon