Global Freedom of Expression

Abril v. Reginaldo

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Press / Newspapers
  • Date of Decision
    November 3, 2015
  • Outcome
    Affirmed Lower Court, Reparations made by individual or entity who exercised FoE
  • Case Number
  • Region & Country
    Brazil, Latin-America and Caribbean
  • Judicial Body
    Supreme (court of final appeal)
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law, Constitutional Law
  • Themes
    Defamation / Reputation, Press Freedom
  • Tags
    False News, Right of Reply, Public Officials, Civil Defamation

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

In 2008, a Brazilian federal prosecutor brought an action against Abril Group media company following a news report about his alleged involvement in smuggling natural resources from indigenous lands.

After the dismissal of the lawsuit by the lower court, the Court of Appeals of the State of Rondônia entered monetary award in the amount of BRL 35,000 (approximately $100,000) in favor of the prosecutor and ordered the decision to be published in Abril’s own weekly news magazine, Veja. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Brazil upheld the monetary award based on the lower court’s findings that the impugned article was untruthful. It, however, reversed the publication order because it was made pursuant to Article 75 of the Federal Press Act, which was previously found unconstitutional by the Court in 2009.


In May 2008, the plaintiff – a federal prosecutor named Reginaldo Pereira da Trindade – filed an individual indemnity claim against Abril publishing company. Abril allegedly published a false news report, claiming that the indigenous tribe Cinta Larga had kidnapped a group of people, including the plaintiff. The news report also claimed that the plaintiff was involved in the illegal smuggling of wood and diamonds from indigenous lands. The plaintiff sought compensatory damages under Article 944 of the Brazilian Civil Code. He also asked the court judgment to be published by Veja magazine under Article 75 of the Press Act, a federal law that was repealed by the Supreme Court of Brazil in 2009.1

Subsequently, the lower court dismissed plaintiff’s claim, ordering him to pay Abril’s attorney fees. However, the Court of Appeals of the State of Rondônia granted the plaintiff’s appeal and ordered Abril to pay BRL 35000 (approximately $100,000) in monetary damages and to publish the court’s decision.

Abril then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Brazil, arguing that the news report was truthful and that the appellate court failed to take into account the evidence that substantiated the article’s truthfulness. Abril also argued that the publication order of the appellate court must be dismissed pursuant to the Supreme Court 2009 decision in ADPF 130/DF that had found the Federal Press Act.

  1. See Global Freedom of Expression, Brazil: New Law on the Right of Reply Puts News Entities at Risk (November 2015),

Decision Overview

On November 3, 2015, Justice Villas Boas Cueva delivered the opinion of Court, upholding the award of monetary damages and overruling the compelled publication order.

Justice Cueva stated that media outlets have a strong ethical duty to publish truthful information and to report responsibility with respect to the subjects of the story. According to him, public figures are more accountable for their actions and are subject to public scrutiny and therefore, those who report false news about public officials must also be held to a higher standard. Here, evidence analyzed by the lower court showed that the news report was false and offensive and that the monetary award in the amount of BRL 35,000.00 was appropriate.

As to the appellate court’s order of publishing the decision, Justice Cueva held that Abril could not be compelled to publish it in a future edition of Veja because the Article 75 of the Press Act, pursuant to which such order could be granted, was found unconstitutional by the Court in 2009. Justice Cueva also noted the publication could not be inferred by any interpretation of the Full Compensation Doctrine of Article 944 of the Civil Code.

Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression



Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Braz., Civil Code art 944

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

Decision (including concurring or dissenting opinions) establishes influential or persuasive precedent outside its jurisdiction.

This decision created precedent for controversies regarding the press. The case reinforces the ethical duty of the press to rely on credible sources. It also reaffirmed that Article 75 of the Press Act is unconstitutional and thus, it does not apply as a measure to compensate any harm caused by media outlets.


Official Case Documents

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback