Total Row: 168 / View:
Page:
 
Deciding court: L.P.:
  • High Judiciary Council (Conselho Superior de Magistratura), 20 May 2008
  • Lisbon Court, 24 January 2012
  • Lisbon Court of Appeal, 4 December 2012
  • Supreme Court of Justice, 4 June 2013
Carvalho: 
  • Felgueiras Court, proc. n.º  21/06.0GAFLG
  • Oporto‘s Court, proc. n.º  6/09.4TRGMR
  • Felgueiras Court, proc. n.º 589/11.9TVPRT
Topic: Freedom of expression, freedom of the media, criminalisation of insult and defamation
National Follow Up Of (when relevant):
ECtHR jurisprudence: ECtHR found there was a violation of freedom of expression in all the below-mentioned cases against Portugal:
  • Lopes Gomes da  Silva c.  Portugal,  28 September 2000
  • Colaço Mestre and SICSociedade Independente de Comunicação, S.A. v. Portugal, 26 April 2007
  • Campos Dâmaso v. Portugal and Laranjeira Marques da Silva v. Portugal, 24 April 2008 and 19 January 2010.
  • Público – Comunicação Social, S.A. and Others v. Portugal, of 7 December 2010
  • Conceição Letria v. Portugal, 12 of April 2011
  • Pinto Coelho v. Portugal, 22 March of 2016
  • Antunes Emídio v. Portugal and Soares Gomes da Cruz v. Portugal, 24 September 2019
  • Pais Pires de Lima v. Portugal, 12 February 2019
Pais Pires de Lima v. Portugal, as in L.P. and Carvalho v. Portugal concerned a complaint following a civil judgement ordering a lawyer to pay damages to a judge whose personal and professional honour and reputation he had attacked.  Apart from Antunes Emídio v. Portugal and Soares Gomes da Cruz v. Portugal - that concerns both a journalist and a doctor - all the other cases mentioned above followed national civil and/or criminal judgements against journalists. The ECtHR has not explicitly excluded the possibility of maintaining criminal defamation laws. However, it has criticised the usage of such laws on numerous occasions. The ECtHR has suggested that the imposition of a criminal sanction alone may be sufficient for the finding of a disproportionate remedy and, therefore, a violation of Article 10 of the ECHR. Jurisprudence cited explicitly by the ECtHR in L.P. and Carvalho v. Portugal
  • on the need for interference "in a democratic society": 
Handyside v. The United Kingdom, 7 December 1976 (Series A no.24), and which it recalled in Morice v. France ([GC], no.29369 / 10, §§ 124 to 127, ECHR 2015). For the principles relating to the freedom of expression of lawyers, Morice judgment, (cited above, §§ 132 to 139) and to the Gouveia Gomes Fernandes and Freitas e Costa v. Portugal (no.1529 / 08, § 46, 29 March 2011). Finally, given that, in the present cases, the measures in question were aimed at the protection of "the reputation and the rights of others", the ECtHR refers to the principles governing the balance between the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Article 10 of the Convention and, on the other hand, the right to respect for private life enshrined in Article 8, which it recently recalled in the Medžlis Islamske Zajednice Brčko and others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina ([GC], no 17224/11, § 77, 27 June 2017);
  • On the alleged damage to the alleged reputation of the judge in L.P 
Since these accusations were transmitted only to the High Judiciary Council - and therefore not made public-, these would be either way very limited, mutatis mutandis:  Bezymyannyy v. Russia, no 10941 / 03, § 42, April 8, 2010);
  • On the severity of the sanctions applied
Likely to produce a dissuasive effect for the legal profession as a whole, in particular when it comes to lawyers defending the interests of their clients (see, mutatis mutandis, Gouveia Gomes Fernandes and Freitas e Costa, cited above, § 54, and Erdener v. Turkey, no 23497/05, § 39, 2 February 2016).
 
Deciding court: Administrative Court of Republic of Slovenia
Topic: Rule of law: -       Principle of legality (in particular, law making powers of the executive/law making procedures) -       Prevention of abuse of powers -       Prohibition of arbitrariness
-       Fair Trial/Access to Justice
Trust: Rule of law challenges affecting cooperation and mutual trust under the Return Directive
National Follow Up Of (when relevant):
ECtHR jurisprudence: M. S. S. v Belgium and Greece, app. no. 30696/09, 21 January 2011 Hirsi Jamaa v Italy, app. no. 27765/09, 23 February 2012 Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary, app. no. 47287/15, 21 November 2019 Čonka v. Belgium, app. no. 51564/99, 5 February 2002 M. A. v. Cyprus, app. no. 41872/10, 23 July 2013 M. A. and Others v. Lithuania, app. no.  59793/17, 11 December 2018 N. D. and N. T., app. nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15, 13 February 2020 Shioshvili and Others v. Russia, app. no. 19356/07, 20 December 2016 Sharifi and Others v. Italy and Greece, app. no. 16643/09, 21 October 2014 Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, app. no. 16483/12, 15 December 2016.
 
Deciding court: Justice of the Peace for Lanciano
Topic: Independence (Interference of the executive) Rule of law (Fair Trial/Access to Justice)
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): Direct follow up of the CJEU judgment C-220/20, which, however, is still pending
ECtHR jurisprudence:
 
Deciding court: Supreme Court of Cassation
Topic: Rule of law (fair trial)
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): Not a direct follow up
ECtHR jurisprudence:
  • Article 3 ECHR
  • Article 6 ECHR
 
Deciding court: Supreme Court of Cassation
Topic: Rule of law (fair trial)
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): Not a direct follow up
ECtHR jurisprudence: -       Article 6 ECHR
 
Deciding court: Justice of the Peace for Bologna
Topic: Independence (Recruitment, appointment, salaries and promotion of magistrates) Impartiality (Individual judges‘ liability)
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): Direct follow up of the CJEU judgment C-658/1
ECtHR jurisprudence:
 
Deciding court: Supreme Court of Cassation
Topic: Impartiality (conflict of interest); Independence (appearance of independence)
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): Not a direct follow-up
ECtHR jurisprudence:
 
Deciding court: Regional Administrative Tribunal for the Emilia Romagna Region (hereafter, TAR for the Emilia Romagna)
Topic: Independence of justices of peace
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): Not a direct follow-up
ECtHR jurisprudence:
 
Deciding court: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia
Topic: Independence (salaries of magistrates)
National Follow Up Of (when relevant):
ECtHR jurisprudence:
 
Deciding court: Supreme Court of Cassation
Topic: Rule of law (fair trial)
National Follow Up Of (when relevant): Not a direct follow up
ECtHR jurisprudence: -       Article 3 ECHR -       Article 4 ECHR -       Article 6 ECHR
 
Total Row: 168 / View:
Page:
 
Project implemented with financial support of the Fundamental Rights & Citizenship Programme of the European Union
© European University Institute 2019
Villa Schifanoia - Via Boccaccio 121, I-50133 Firenze - Italy