Back

Journalist convicted for asking questions wins free speech case at European court

Themes: Freedom of speech

Portugal

Colaço Mestre and SIC v. Portugal | 2007

Journalist convicted for asking questions wins free speech case at European court

I was shocked to have been convicted.

José Manuel Colaço Mestre, quoted by Publico

Background

José Manuel Colaço Mestre filmed a report for the TV station SCI about the alleged bribery of Portuguese football referees. The report included an interview, in which the actions of the Chairman of FC Porto and the then President of the Portuguese Football League, Mr Pinto de Costa, were discussed. Mr Colaço Mestre questioned his interviewee about Mr Pinto de Costa’s dual role, asking whether there was a problem with him being in charge of one of the country’s largest football clubs whilst also being “the referees’ boss”.

This was enough for Mr Pinto de Costa to press charges for criminal defamation.

Mr Colaço Mestre and SCI were both found guilty of defamation, solely on the basis of the questions asked in the interview. They were both made to pay damages to Mr Pinto de Costa. Mr Colaço Mestre was made to pay an additional fine or face three months’ imprisonment.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

The European court ruled that nothing said in the interview had breached journalistic ethics. The interview had been about the actions of a public figure in an area of great public concern. There had not been good enough reasons to impose such heavy punishments.

The conviction of Mr Colaço Mestre and SCI had therefore violated their right to free speech.

The court recalls that, according to its well established case law, freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and is one of the basic conditions for its progress and each individual’s self-fulfillment.

Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, April 2007

Follow-up

Intensive training about the protection of free speech under the European Convention on Human Rights was organised for the most senior members of the Portuguese justice system. Participants included the Minister of Justice, the Director for the Centre of Judicial Studies and over two hundred judges.

Mr Colaço Mestre successfully asked to have his criminal conviction revised, so that he was acquitted. Both he and SCI were paid compensation.

Additional information

Themes: Freedom of speech

Portugal

Related examples

Excessive police operation against journalists leads to reforms to protect media sources

Four Belgian journalists were targeted by the police in a huge search and seizure operation aimed at identifying the source of leaked government information. The Strasbourg court ruled that the operation had been unjustified and disproportionate. The case influenced new legislation to improve protections for journalists and their sources.

Themes: Privacy Freedom of speech

Belgium

Legal attack on a newspaper highlights the need for free speech reforms

Before a presidential election, the newspaper The Day published articles criticising two of the candidates. The politicians sued the owners of the newspaper for damages and won. The Strasbourg court found that the owners had been punished merely for publishing opinions, violating their right to free speech. The case influenced reforms to protect freedom of expression in Ukraine.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Ukraine

Justice for magazine editor ordered to pay huge damages – and new rules to protect free speech

Retired journalist Veseljko Koprivica was ordered to pay huge damages after losing a defamation case. The Strasbourg court ruled that the damages awarded were so excessive that they violated his right to free speech. A ruling by the Supreme Court of Montenegro specified that damages for defamation should not be high enough to discourage journalists from playing their key role in society.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Montenegro

Free speech reforms after writer prosecuted for reporting allegations of police brutality

In the early 1980s Thorgeir Thorgeirson wrote articles claiming that there was a problem with police brutality in Reykjavik. His reporting was based on the prosecution of a police officer and various public allegations. Nevertheless, he was convicted for defaming the Reykjavik police. The European court ruled that this had violated his right to freedom of expression, leading to free speech...

Themes: Freedom of speech

Iceland

Magazine made to pay damages for criticising politician’s homophobic behaviour

The magazine Mladina published an article criticising a politician for homophobic remarks in a parliamentary debate. The politician sued the magazine because he had been offended by its criticism. The Slovenian courts ruled against the magazine, ordering it to pay damages. The European court ruled this had violated the magazine’s rights – leading to reforms to protect free speech.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Slovenia

Justice for the victims of Soviet oppression

Klaus and Yuri Kiladze were eleven and nine years old when their father was killed by the Soviet authorities. Their mother was then sent to a gulag, their family apartment was seized and they were taken into abusive State custody. Decades later, a Georgian law was passed establishing a right to compensation for victims of Soviet oppression. Yet the national courts still denied them justice.

Themes: Right to a fair trial

Georgia

Greater protections for free speech after journalist sued for reporting on alleged political corruption

In July 2000 Ilnar Gorelishvili wrote an article about a politician who owned various expensive properties. She questioned how he had bought these whilst working in public service on a moderate salary. The politician sued her for defamation and won. The European court ruled that Georgian law had not properly protected Ms Gorelishvili’s right to give her opinion.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Georgia

Reforms to protect free speech after journalists sued

Matti Paloaro and Pentti Eerikäinen were journalists. They reported on the prosecution of a businesswoman, who had abused public funds and was later sentenced to prison. The businesswoman sued the journalists, claiming they had invaded her privacy by publicising her prosecution. The businesswoman won in the Finnish courts – but the Strasbourg court ruled in favour of the journalists.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Finland

Senator put in prison for criticising the government

Senator Miguel Castells wrote an article claiming that the government was failing to investigate a series of murders. He was convicted of insulting the government and sentenced to a year in prison. The European court ruled that his right to free speech had been violated. The Spanish Constitutional Court then developed its case law to provide greater protection to free speech in Spain.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Spain

Newspaper’s free speech victory leads to reforms

In 1988 the local newspaper Bladet Tromsø published claims by a government inspector alleging misconduct by certain seal hunters. The Norwegian courts found the newspaper liable for defamation, saying that it had relied too heavily on government reports. The Strasbourg court ruled that this violated the paper’s right to free speech – leading to reforms to protect freedom of expression.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Norway

Justice for animal rights campaigners who had pamphlets seized by police

Elina Goussev and Michael Marenk were protesting against the fur trade. Police searched their homes and seized campaign materials. The Strasbourg court ruled that this had breached their right to free speech, as the seizure had not been clearly justified by Finnish law. After the case had been submitted to the court, reforms were made to prevent arbitrary seizures.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Finland

Justice for man who was fined for writing an article

Isaak Grinberg wrote an opinion article criticising a local governor. The governor sued Mr Grinberg for defamation, making him pay a fine. The Strasbourg court ruled that Mr Grinberg had been punished for giving a value judgment about a public figure. This violated his right to free speech. Mr Grinberg was awarded €1,120 in compensation.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Russian Federation

Greater protection for the media after journalist fined for refusing to reveal the identity of his source

Journalist William Goodwin was given leaked information about a company. The company wanted to sue the source of the leak - but Mr Goodwin refused to reveal their identity. The UK courts fined Mr Goodwin 5,000 pounds for contempt of court. The Strasbourg court ruled this had violated his right to receive and give out information.

Themes: Freedom of speech

United Kingdom

Reforms to protect media freedom after a journalist was convicted for a report about extremists

Jens Jersild is a journalist. He was convicted for filming a news report in which extremists made racist remarks. The Strasbourg court found that convicting Mr Jersild for his work was disproportionate and violated his right to free speech. The case helped improve legal protections for media freedom in Denmark.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Denmark

Legal challenge brings an end to the state monopoly on TV and radio

During the 1970s and 1980s, various Austrians wanted to set up local TV or radio stations. However, Austrian law banned them from doing so, as it gave the Austrian Broadcasting Company a monopoly. The Strasbourg court ruled that the ban was disproportionate and violated the right to free speech. The judgment led to the opening up of broadcasting regulations.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Austria

Fairer television coverage for small political parties

Small political parties received virtually no television news coverage, and were banned from TV advertising. The Strasbourg court ruled that this left the Pensioner’s Party no way of transmitting its message on TV, violating its right to freedom speech. Reforms were made to political broadcasting rules, requiring the national broadcaster to include smaller parties in its TV coverage.

Themes: Freedom of speech

Norway

Reforms made after pensioner given unreasonable punishments

Sofija Tešić received a monthly pension equivalent to 170 euros. After she lost a defamation case, every month two-thirds of her pension was taken to pay off her debt – leaving her without money to pay for medication. The Strasbourg court ruled that this had been disproportionate. The Serbian courts changed their case law to limit defamation awards, and enforcement proceedings were also...

Themes: Freedom of speech

Serbia